4 




ni 



Class _ 
Book 



PRESENTED BY 



LETTERS 



TO 

THOMAS A, MORRIS, D. D„ 

Senior Bishop of the M. E. Church. 

BY 

JAMES M. MATHES, 

A MINISTER OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 



" On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of 
hades shall not prevail against it." — Christ. 



CINCINNATI: 
PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR 

GEO. B. BENTLEY « CO., PBlNTERf. 

1861. 






& 






V- ■ 1 *i 3 . 



PREFACE. 

The first ten of the following series of Letters were 
published in the " Christian Record," commencing in 
November, 1859. In this way they were widely circu- 
lated and extensively read by the Christian brother- 
hood, and others who felt an interest in the important 
issues discussed. When we reached the tenth number 
in the series, we became satisfied that we would have to 
place them in tract or book form for general circula- 
tion. The voice of the brotherhood, as conveyed to us 
in numerous letters, seemed to demand this; and we 
yielded to the wishes of many brethren and friends. 

These Letters as published in the "Record" pro- 
duced quite a sensation upon some of the friends and 
admirers of Bishop Morris. We heard of one case, 
where a member of the M. E. Church borrowed the 
u Record" containing one of these letters, and when he 
had read it, he became so much excited that he threw 
it into the fire, in order to destroy the letter! 

But this was an exceptional case. We have abun- 
dant evidence that many were induced, by reading these 
Letters, to search the Scriptures, and were led to em- 
brace the truth. We have therefore added several new 
letters to the series, and revised the ten that appeared 
in the " Record," and now offer them to the public in 
this little volume, which is cheap and within the reach 
of all. 

Let no one throw it aside, as unprofitable, because it 



4 PREFACE. 

is controversial. It isftrue, we have called in question 
many of the positions taken by the good Bishop, and 
fully sustained our objections, by the admissions of the 
most learned and able men in the M . E. Church and by 
Scripture testimony; but in doing so we have abused 
no one — we have always endeavored to distinguish be- 
tween the system and the honest people who embrace 
it. We have used hard arguments and pleasant words, 
and trust that we have manifested the Christian spirit. 

Our object has not been to wound the feelings of any 
one, but to arouse them to search the Scriptures. We 
love the good and honest of all denominations, and de- 
sire to see all united upon the " one foundation" ac- 
cording to the prayer of the divine Savior. Such union 
can not be consummated until sectarianism is made to 
give place to Christianity. Men must be brought to 
love God and the Bible more than party, before they 
will consent to such a union. 

If these Letters should prove a means, by the bless- 
ing of God, of leading any to a candid investigation of 
the great issues involved, in the light of the word of 
God, we shall be fully satisfied that our labor has not 
been in vain. The blessing of God attend all who de- 
sire to know the truth! TFE AUTHOR. 



LETTERS TO BISHOP MORRIS. 



LETTER I. 

Introductory — Under what circumstances we became 
acquainted with him — Read his book with interest — 
Buy the Discipline every four years — The Bishop's 
mature thoughts — The text very appropriate — One 
in spirit, though they may differ in fpeculative theolo- 
gy, forms of discipline, etc. — No sectarian or party 
names in the primitive church — Dr. Morris mistak- 
en — The primitive Christians were all one — Dr. M. 
teaches that division is not incompatible with unity — 
Paul teaches that division among Christians is car- 
nal — Are the Methodists one in heart with the other 
sects? — Calvin and Servetus differed in "speculative 
theology" — Were they one in heart? 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D. : 

My Dear Sir — A short time ago I saw it 
announced in your church organs, that a book 
was in press written by you, being a discourse 
delivered by you before the North Indiana and 
Pittsburg Conferences, both of which took ac- 
tion, requesting its publication ; and entitled, 

" A Discourse on Methodist Church Polity. 
By T. A. Morris, D. D., senior Bishop of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church.' ' 

I determined to procure the work as soon as 



6 LETTERS TO 

it came out ; and I have been fortunate enough 
to succeed. I was very anxious to read your 
book, from the fact that I have long known you 
by reputation, and I was introduced to you, and 
-spent a very pleasant afternoon with you and 
other friends, at the house of our mutual friend, 
Hon. Joseph A. Wright, then Governor of the 
State of Indiana. This I think was in the win- 
ter of 1853. I was then much pleased with 
your frank and manly bearing, and delighted 
with your candid and edifying conversation. 

These circumstances, together with the fact 
that ycu are the senior Bishop in your church, 
prepared me to read your explanation and de- 
fense of " Methodist Church polity/' with can- 
dor, and without prejudice. And I may say to 
you, Doctor, without flattery, that I count my- 
self happy in being permitted to study Method- 
ism under so great a master. 

It is true, I have read the writings of most of 
the great men of your church, such as Wesley, 
Clarke, Fletcher, Benson, Watson, Inskip's 
Methodism, and Jonathan Crother's "Portrai- 
ture of Methodism." I have also read and 
studied your Discipline, getting a new one eve- 
ry four years, in order to keep up with the chan- 
ges and reforms made upon it by the General 
Conference. I have also been a pretty constant 



BISHOP MORRIS. 7 

reader of the Western Christian Advocate for 
many years, and of course from all these sources 
of information I had enjoyed a fair opportunity 
of becoming acquainted with Methodism ; but 
still, I read your little book with peculiar inter- 
est. 

Having finished the reading of your book, I 
have concluded to review it, in a kind and Chris- 
tian spirit, in a series of Letters. I shall use 
pleasant words, and hard arguments, in oppos- 
ing what I consider wrong in your discourse, 
or in Methodism as you explain and defend it. 
You have said some excellent things, and have 
said them well, and in a very plain and forcible 
manner, for which I award you all praise. Yet 
you have said some things to which, with the 
Bible in my hand, I am compelled to enter my 
protest. 

This little book, you assure us, contains your 
"mature thoughts' ' on your church polity. 
No one acquainted with you will doubt your 
candor, or your ability to develop your church 
polity, and prove it to be of divine authority, if 
indeed it is so. Your fcook must therefore be 
received as a standard work, upon the subjects 
upon which it treats. 

You have taken a very appropriate text. Let 
us repeat it : "For though I be absent in the 



8 LETTERS TO 

flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying 
and beholding your order, and the steadfastness 
of your faith in Christ ;" Col. ii. 5. 

After reading your text, you say, by way of 
introduction : " This Epistle of Paul is addressed 
' to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ 
which are at Colosse/ or to those who not only 
profess Christianity, but faithfully practice its 
precepts and experience its saving power. All 
such are one in spirit. They may differ in spec- 
ulative theology, in forms of discipline, modes 
of worship, and in name, but they are one in 
heart." 

We most cordially agree with you that the 
church at Colosse was a model church, not only 
professing the religion of Jesus Christ, but faith- 
fully practicing its divine precepts and experi- 
encing its saving power. But your next state- 
ment we can not receive. How do you learn 
that the Colossian brethren differed in specula- 
tive theology, forms of discipline, modes of wor- 
ship, and in name ? Were they divided into 
Trinitarians, Arians, Unitarians, and Material- 
ists, and still one in spirit f Were they divided 
in name, as Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, 
Lutherans and Quakers ? Did some of them 
adopt the Discipline of the M. E. Church, an- 
other party the Westminster Confession of Faith, 



BISHOP MORRIS. 9 

while others walked by the various rules of the 
Baptists, Lutherans and Quakers ? I know that 
you will not claim that such was the case in this 
model church at Colosse. Will you affirm that 
such a state of things existed in the primitive 
church ? Were they Methodists at Jerusalem, 
Baptists at Rome, and Presbyterians at Corinth ? 
No indeed, you know that no such divisions ex- 
isted in the primitive church, and for many hun- 
dred years after the death of the Apostles. 

From what premises then do you draw your 
conclusion, that Christians may differ as you 
say above, and still be one in spirit ? Does 
Christ or the Apostles intimate in a single in- 
stance, that Christians might be one in heart, 
while differing in " speculative theology, forms 
of discipline, modes of worship, and in name ?" 
Certainly, nowhere in the New Testament can 
such an intimation be found. But on the con- 
trary, Christ prayed for his followers, "That 
they all may be one, as thou Father art in me 
and I in thee, that they may be one in us ;" 
John xvii. 21. Paul says, "Now, I beseech 
you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and 
that there be no divisions among you ; but that 
ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, 
and in the same judgment ;" 1 Cor. i. 10, 



10 LETTERS TO 

Thus you see that Paul and his Master were 
both opposed to such division as you say may 
exist, and still the parties be one in heart. And 
with them agrees every inspired writer. No, 
Doctor, you are mistaken. It is a naked as- 
sumption, without a shadow of authority from 
the oracles of God. You see professed Chris- 
tians now differing in all these particulars, and in 
the goodness of your heart, you wish to excuse 
them, and throw over them the broad mantle of 
your charity, and, therefore, assume that these 
differences do not hinder them from being one 
in heart. 

Let us look at this a little further, Your 
language, although perhaps you did not intend 
it, is calculated to make the impression upon the 
casual reader, that you had found in the church 
at Colosse, a model for all the division you men- 
tion. You say "All such are one in heart." 
" They may differ," etc. I need not say to you, 
jbecause as a Bishop you know, that not only 
the Colossian church, but all the primitive 
Christians walked by the same divine rule, the 
word of God, and all wore the same worthy 
name — the name Christian, from Christ their 
head and husband, which was given to the dis- 
ciples, first at Antioch, by divine authority. 

As to their order of worship, Luke tells us, 



BISHOP MORRIS. 11 

" They continued steadfastly in the Apostles' 
doctrine and in fellowship, and in breaking of 
bread, and in prayers." ~No division there, 
Doctor. The great apostle Paul differed with 
you amazingly in his estimate of division. 
You teach us that division is not incompatible 
with unity, and the spirit of Christianity ; Tvhile he 
rebuked the manifestation of the spirit of division 
in the Corinthian church, by saying, " I could 
not address you as spiritural, but as carnal." 
" For while one says, I am of Paul, and I of 
Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is 
Christ divided ? Was Paul crucified for you ? 
or were ye baptized in the name of Paul V 

Paul teaches that where such division exists, 
the parties so divided are " carnal and walk as 
men." While you teach that such differences 
may exist, among professed Christians, while 
they may still be one in heart, and "spiritual." 
Who shall decide when doctors disagree ? For 
myself, I prefer Dr. Paul, much as I love and 
admire Dr. T. A. Morris. And until you 
produce some better authority for division and 
sectarianism than your mere assumptions, I 
must continue to adhere to the old notion, in- 
culcated by Christ and his Apostles, that union 
is divine, and that division or sectarianism is 
heresy I 



12 LETTEKS TO 

But is it so in fact, Doctor, that the differences 
you speak of do not break fellowship ? Are 
the Methodists " one in heart" and spirit, with 
all other sects and parties ? If they are, then 
we have been mistaken all our life ; and if not, 
then your language is calculated to mislead. 
You are a Trinitarian, and differ in "speculative 
theology," from Unitarians, Arians, Socinians, 
Pelagians and Universalists. Are you all one 
in spirit and in heart, notwithstanding these 
differences ? 

John Calvin was a Trinitarian, and Servetus 
differed with him in some little matter of " specu- 
lative theology ;" yet Calvin had him burned at 
the stake for this difference ! Were they one in 
spirit and in heart ? Credat Judaes Apjpella; 
non ego I 






BISHOP MORRIS. 13 



LETTER II. 

Importance of the word of God as a rule of faith — All 
profitable, and therefore essential — Stick to it for 
life — If wrong, change — Paul changed — Apollog 
changed — Martin Luther changed — The " Iron bed- 
stead." 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D. : 

My Dear Sir — I see that you only make two 
points in the discussion of your text, viz. : 

1st. Faith. 2d. Order. We only propose 
to examine a few things under your first head. 

On page 10th, you say : "And here we en- 
dorse for every consistent Christian that he be- 
lieves all Bible truth, especially all truth essen- 
tial to vital Christianity. ,, 

Now, sir, from the above statement, I infer 
that you do not hold all "Bible truth* * to be 
essential to Christianity ! That you hold to two 
classes of " Bible truths," one essential, and the 
other non-essential, and that even a good Chris- 
tian may disbelieve the non-essential truths of 
the Bible without endangering the vitality of 
his religion ! 

But the great apostle Paul diners from you 
upon this subject. He says, " All Scripture 
given by inspiration of God, is profitable for 
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruc- 



14 LETTERS TO 

tion in righteousness : that the man of God may 
be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good 
works ;" 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17. 

According to your statement, Doctor, some 
truths in the Bible are not essential, and are con- 
sequently "unprofitable!" But according to 
the apostle Paul, it is all profitable, and there- 
fore essential. Our best lexicographers define 
the word essential to mean "necessary to." 
Any Bible truth that is not necessary to vital 
Christianity is non-essential, and vital Chris- 
tianity would be just as perfect in every respect 
if all such non-essentials were left out of the 
Bible entirely ! Such non-essentials are not 
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correc- 
tion, for instruction in righteousness, and can 
be of no value in making the man of God per- 
fect unto all good works. Simply because they 
are unnecessary — u non-essential" to vital Chris- 
tianity ! Are you prepared for this, Doctor ? 

2. The next objection I have to your state- 
ment above is, that you seem to have two sorts 
of Christianity; the one you call "vital Chris- 
tianity/ ' and the other I suppose is a lifeless or 
dead Christianity ! Where in all the book of 
God do you read of " vital Christianity ?" We 
had, in our simplicity, always supposed that 
the Christianity established by our Lord and his 



BISHOP MORRIS. 15 

inspired Apostles, was a living Christianity, and 
that every thing taught by Christ and his in- 
spired teachers was essential to it ! Have I 
been mistaken ? It would seem so, if you are 
correct. But I know I am not mistaken, when 
I affirm, that whatever claims to be from Christ 
that is not vital is a forgery and a libel on true 
Christianity. 

3. Before leaving your first head, you say : 
" Before we adopt any system, we should be sat- 
isfied that it accords with the Bible, and then 
stick to it for life. ,, 

Now, my dear Doctor, I must be permitted 
to differ entirely from you upon this point. 
There is not an honest sectarian in the land, no 
matter how heretical his religious creed may 
be, who is not satisfied that his " system accords 
with the Bible !" And the more ignorant he 
may be of what the Bible plan of salvation is, 
the more confident and dogmatical is he " in 
affirming that his u system accords with the 
Bible !" Yet, you would say to all such ig- 
noramuses, because they are honest in their 
views and impressions, stick to it for life! 
But I would not. I would, however, give all 
such the instruction of the Savior, " Search the 
Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal 
life, and they are they that testify of me." 



16 LETTERS TO 

You and I both believe that the Calvinistic 
" system does not accord with the Bible," but 
is contrary to it, and subversive of its teachings ; 
and yet we know that thousands, both in Europe 
and America, honestly embrace it, and are sat- 
isfied that it accords with the Bible. Yet, you 
would advise them to ''stick to it for life," not- 
withstanding you oppose it in your preaching, 
and regard it as a dangerous heresy ! A sys- 
tem which the eccentric Lorenzo Dow has re- 
duced to an absurdity, thus : 

" You can, and you can't, 
You will, and you won't, 
You shall, and you shan't, 
You'll be damned if you do, 
You'll be damned if you don't." 

But still you would advise the honest Calvin- 
ist to "stick to his system for life" — to search 
no further — investigate no further — but " stick 
to it for life." 

4. But I will tell you, Doctor, what course I 
take with all honest Calvinists, and all other 
honest persons whom I find in error, and satis- 
fied to remain so ; I would advise all persons, no 
matter how well satisfied they may have been 
when they embraced their religious systems, to 
" Search the Scriptures" — " Grow in grace and 
in the knowledge of the truth" — "Be not un- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 17 

wise, but understanding what the will of the 
Lord is." And if in the progress of their in- 
vestigations they should learn the " way of the 
Lord more perfectly," and as a consequence 
discover that the system which they had hon* 
estly entertained for years as according to the 
Bible, and with which they had been satisfied , 
was wrong, I would advise all such to change — 
give it up, and " stick to it" no longer, but set 
themselves right without any unnecessary de- 
lay. 

It is the duty of every man to embrace that 
system which not only accords with the Bible, 
but which is actually taught in it. This advice 
I would give to every sectarian in the land. No 
matter how long he may have been satisfied with 
his human systems, nor how prominent he may 
stand in his branch of the sectarian tree ; even 
if he has been dubbed " D. D." or " Bishop," 
(in the modern sense,) I would urge him to 
read and investigate, and if he finds that he has 
been mistaken, give it up. Let him not dare 
to "stick to it for life," through personal pride, 
or vain glory, but make haste to change, as an 
honest man convinced of error. 

I know it is pretty hard for a popular man, 
and especially a preacher, who has been identi- 
fied with a cause, or system, to give it up, and 
2 



18 LETTERS TO 

frankly and honestly say, / was wrong. There 
are many little reasons which a man may use to 
quiet his conscience, so that he may " stick to 
the error for life," though convinced that it is 
an error. 

When I was a student at the University, I 
was intimately acquainted with a Presbyterian 
minister, a Doctor of Divinity and a Professor. 
He had been satisfied that the system taught in 
the Westminster Confession of Faith was in ac- 
cordance with the Bible ; and he had success- 
fully maintained the system against the opposi- 
tion for more than a third of a century. But 
the circumstances surrounding him were such, 
at the time to which I refer, (1839-1845,) that 
the learned D. D. heard a different system 
preached from the one he had espoused ; he 
gave heed to it, investigated the whole subject 
in the light of God's word, and w T ith an honest 
desire to know the truth. And the result was 
that he made the discovery that "sectarianism 
is heresy," and that he had been honestly mis- 
taken in his theological system. He was in a 
fix ! Conscience said to him, change — be an 
honest man, and set yourself right. ^ 

But his pride of character, love of friends, at- 
tachment to old and long tried church arrange- 
ments, social institutions, and modes of wor- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 19 

ship, all appealed to him to hold on to the sys- 
tem of his fathers — " to stick to it for life." 
Said he to me one day, " I am now fully satis- 
fied that you are right in the main. I have no 
doubt but you are right, in preaching faith as 
the simple belief of the truth, as revealed in the 
Bible. I am sure,*' continued he, " that you 
are right as to the design of baptism being ' for 
the remission of sins ;' nothing is more clearly 
taught in the New Testament. And the mode, 
too," said he, "I have no doubt John immersed 
the Savior in the Jordan, and that the disciples 
and early Christians immersed exclusively.' ' 

Well, said I to the Doctor, if that is your 
faith, had you not better change your position, 
and set yourself right before God and man ? 

He very frankly admitted that it would be 
right ; but said he, after a moment's reflection, 
" I think it hardly worth while for me to change 
now. It would sound so strangely to my 
friends. I have been preaching infant sprink- 
ling, and practicing it, too, for more than thirty 
years ; and during that time have sprinkled 
hundreds, if not thousands of babies, and if I 
were now, in my old age, to be immersed for the 
remission of sins, what would my old friends 
and acquaintances say of me V 

And so the learned minister did not carry out 



20 LETTERS TO 

fully the convictions of his mind ; though he did 
change his ecclesiastical relation, uniting with a 
church having more liberal views of Christian- 
ity, but not requiring immersion. 

5. But we have some very eminent examples 
of this principle of change. Saul of Tarsus, af- 
terwards Paul the Apostle, was a very religious 
man before his conversion to Christ. He tells 
us, that "touching the righteousness of the law, 
he had lived blameless." That he " had served 
God, in all good conscience, from his fore- 
fathers." That "he verily thought that he 
ought to do many things contrary to the name 
of Jesus of Nazareth." For many years he 
was entirely satisfied with his religious system, 
honestly believing that he was right and ac- 
cepted of God. 

But on his way to Damascus to persecute the 
Christians, he met the Lord Jesus, in the vision, 
and he was convinced that he was in error. 
Now what must he do ? If you had been at 
Damascus in the place of Ananias, you would 
have said to *him, a Stick to your system for 
life." Never change ! But Ananias said to 
him, " And now, why tarries t thou ? Arise, 
and be immersed, and wash away thy sins, call- 
ing on the name of the Lord." To this he sub- 
mitted forthwith, which was an entire abandon- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 21 

ment of Lis old system, with which he had been 
so long satisfied, and a complete change to a new 
system, the gospel of Christ, which he immedi- 
ately preached in Damascus. 

Apollos, the eloquent preacher of the baptism 
of John, with which he had been satisfied for 
years, and which he had zealously and success- 
fully preached at Corinth, being "taught the 
^ r ay of the Lord more perfectly/' by Aquilla 
and Priscilla, surrendered, and gave it up. But 
if you had been there, you would have advised 
him to change not ! "Stick to it for life !" 

Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic monk, 
and for many years fully satisfied that the sys- 
tem which he had honestly embraced accorded 
with the Bible. But afterwards, as you know, 
he was convinced by reading the Bible that he 
was mistaken. What was he to do now ? You 
would have said to him, "Stick to it for life." 
Well, suppose he had taken your advice, and 
continued to maintain in the Romish Church 
that system which he was now fully convinced 
was wrong, what would have become of his 
honesty — of his conscience — of his manhood — 
of the glorious Reformation itself, which he so 
effectually promoted by changing f Did Lu- 
ther do right, when he gave up his old system, 
and became a reformer ? We all say that he 



22 LETTERS TO 

acted wisely and nobly. He did just what every 
other man should do when he finds that he is 
wrong. But your advice, my dear sir, would 
have kept Luther and Calvin, and all the early 
reformers, in the old apostate hierarchy ! You 
would have said to them : Gentlemen, I know 
your system is wrong, but as you have been 
satisfied with it, I advise you to " stick to it for 
life!" 

6. Time would fail me to speak of John and 
Charles Wesley, and many other prominent 
men in your own church, all of whom changed. 
If Wesley and his colaborers in the work of de- 
veloping and bringing out Methodism, had tak- 
en your advice, and " stuck to their old system 
for life," where would your Methodism have 
been to-day ? Why, nowhere. It could never 
have been inaugurated. 

But let these examples suffice. If we we^e 
all infallible, then we might talk about "sticking 
to it for life. ,, But as imperfection is an attri- 
bute of our common humanity, we are liable to 
err, and may be honestly mistaken, and satisfied 
with a false system. Therefore, before your 
advice can be admitted as wise and safe, you 
must strike out humanity, and insert divinity. 

7. But 1 will now give you what I consider 
the wisest and safest course for every one to 



BISHOP MORRIS. 23 

pursue. All Protestants admit that the Bible 
is the only infallible rule of faith and practice ; 
and upon the admission of all parties, human 
creeds and systems contain much that is errone- 
ous — mere trash. 

To make sure work, then, and save us from 
the trouble of chanoino- afterwards, we should 
be very particular ; and instead of embracing a 
human system, supposed to accord with the Bi- 
ble, let every one be certain to embrace the sys- 
tem taught in the Bible. To make sure of this, 
let him embrace the Bible, the whole Bible, and 
nothing but the Bible, as a system of faith and 
practice. He may not understand it all when 
he embraces it, but let him determine to study 
it, and to learn as much of it as he can. He 
may then " grow in grace and in the knowledge 
of the truth," as long as he lives. He may then 
" stick to it for life," and though he may learn 
many things as he advances, yet ail would be 
in harmony with what he learned at first, and 
consequently he would never be under the ne- 
cessity of changing. Is not this the safest 
course, Doctor ? 

8. But the votaries of human creeds and sys- 
tems are cramped in their investigations. The 
creed is the " iron bedstead." If found to be 
too short for it, they must be stretched ; and if 



24 LETTERS TO 

they grow too long, by learning more Bible 
truth than is in the creed, they must be cut off 
to suit the measure. 

But as all these matters will come up again 
under your second head, I will press it no fur- 
ther now. 



BISHOP MORRIS. 25 



LETTER III. 

Order — Government of some sort in the church is 
reeded — Without government, all would be confu- 
sion — Corrupt practices would creep in — What sort 
of government shall we have? human, or the di- 
vine? — Specific form of government — Prudential 
rules and regulations — God's appointment must be 
obeyed — The Bible the constitutional law of the 
church — Branches of the church, etc. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D. : 

My Dear Sir — We now come to the second 
division of your subject, which is " Order." 
This you discuss as applying to church polity 
and discipline. Now, in my judgment, the 
Apostle has no sort of reference to any thing of 
the kind, in the passage you quote as your text. 
He simply refers to the order of their worship, 
as a congregation of the Lord. He says : 
" Though absent in the flesh, yet am I with you 
in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, 
and the steadfastness of your faith," etc. From 
this passage and its context, it is evident that 
the Apostle is speaking of their public worship, 
and not of the exercise of discipline, as you seem 
to teach. But we shall let that pass. You 
commence the discussion of this branch of your 
subject by saying, on page 11th : 

" The term order, in this connection, properly 



26 LETTERS TO 

applies to church discipline, and its administra^ 
tion. It will be conceded by all competent . 
judges that government of some sort or other 
in the church, is requisite to her peace and 
prosperity. This is true of all associations, 
whether voluntary or involuntary. What would 
be the condition of your family without family 
government ? Or of your schools without strict 
rules of propriety and order ? Or of your State, 
without wholesome laws duly administered ? 
Or of your army, without strict military disci- 
pline ? And what would become of the peace, 
purity and prosperity of the church, without 
* rules and regulations' strictly enforced ? All 
would be in a state of anarchy and confusion, 
doomed to wreck and ruin, corrupt practices 
would creep in, confidence would be destroyed, 
and hatred would supersede peace and love." 

In all of this, Doctor, I most heartily concur. 
"Order is heaven's first law." Discipline we 
must have in the church of God. This is a 
proposition that commends itself to the good 
sense of every right thinking person, and I think 
none will be inclined to dispute it. " Rules and 
regulations" we must have for the government 
of the church, or the result would be just what 
you describe, "anarchy and confusion." Upon 
this point we have no controversy with you, or 
any one else. 

I 



BISHOP MORRIS. 27 

But the real issue, Doctor, is this : What sort 
of discipline shall we have, the human, or the 
divine? God has established a government in 
the church, and furnished it with a perfect law 
or discipline. Men also have made governments 
for the church, and man u factured disciplines for 
its government. So that we can now take our 
choice. We may choose the divine law and 
government, and honor God, by doing his com- 
mandments ; or we may choose the human dis- 
cipline and government, if we like it better, and 
dishonor God, and ourselves by ignoring the 
divine, and adopting the human. 

Well, Doctor, we say the divine discipline, 
and the divine rules and regulations, without 
amendment, addition or subtraction, as con- 
tained in the Holy Oracles, is the best. While 
you and the sects generally seem to prefer the 
human ! And though you admit the correct- 
ness of our plea, by admitting the Bible to be 
" the only infallible rule of faith and practice;" 
yet, you stultify yourself, by making what you 
are pleased to call your " prudential rules," for 
the government of your church. 

We candidly believe, Doctor, that it is be- 
cause the professed Christian church, or Prot- 
estant Christendom, do not adopt and live up to 
the divine rule, that anarchy and confusion is 



28 LETTERS TO 

every where manifest. Men are not satisfied 
■with the "divine rules and regulations/' and 
have gone to work to improve upon them ! 
Each party making its "prudential rules and 
regulations" to suit themselves, and then as- 
suming some human name for the party, suita- 
ble to their fancy ; and every day confusion be- 
comes worse confounded ! But you continue : 

"We do not contend, however, that any spe- 
cific form of church government is essential. 
The gospel is destined to prevail among all na- 
tions, and their social and political conditions are 
so diversified, that the same prudential rules 
and regulations would not be applicable to all of 
them. These prudential rules and regulations 
may, therefore, be safely varied to any needful 
extent, not inconsistent with the Bible, which is 
the constitutional law of the church generally." 

Now, my dear Bishop, let us pause and calm- 
ly examine tnis last paragraph for a few mo- 
ments. 1. You do not pretend that any "spe- 
cific form of church government is essential." 
That is — if your words mean any thing — any 
form will do, one as well as another, if it is 
strictly enforced ! The human is just as good 
as the divine, provided it is strictly enforced ; 
no specific form is- essential ! ! 

Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not 



BISHOP MORRIS. 29 

that the Lord Jesus, as King and Head of the 
church, has given " specific rules and regula- 
tions' ' for the government of his church? Will 
you presume to say that these are not essential ? 
That your prudential rules and regulations will 
do just as well, or even better ! Or do you con- 
tend that he left the law-making power entirely 
in the hands of uninspired men ? 2. But you 
further say, " The gospel is destined to prevail 
among all nations, and their social and political 
conditions are so diversified that the same pru- 
dential rules and regulations would not be ap- 
plicable to all of them." 

This I understand to be your reason for think- 
ing that no specific form jof church government 
is essential. In this, however, I differ widely 
from you. We contend that the " specific form 
of church government" given to the church of 
Christ in the beginning, is not only "essential," 
but is precisely adapted to all the nations of 
earth. Why, sir, you might have contended 
with equal propriety that the gospel itself was 
not adapted to all nations, and therefore should 
be modified to suit the taste and prejudice of the 
people of every age and country ! And some 
have even taken this ground ! For instance : 

In the beginning none but believers w^ere 
baptized by the Apostles, and that was always 



30 LETTERS TO 

performed by an immersion of the whole body 
in water, as thou very well knowest. John 
Calvin says, " The word baptizo signifies to im- 
merse, and it is evident that immersion was the 
practice of the primitive church.' ' And yet 
Calvin contends that the rite of baptism may be 
varied to suit circumstances, place, climate, etc. 
In the beginning the Apostles taught believ- 
ing penitents to "be immersed every one of 
them in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remis- 
sion of sins ;" Acts ii. 38. But we are now as- 
sured by some innovators upon apostolic teach- 
ing, that though this may have been all well 
enough at that time, and for that people, yet in 
this age of progress ?1 |$Kid manners and personal 
refinement, it is not to be tolerated ! It is nei- 
ther polite nor fashionable now to be immersed I 
And as to remission of sins being in any way 
connected with baptism, the thing is an old 
fogy notion — it is " Campbellism," and not to 
be thought of among cultivated society and or- 
thodox people ! The gospel must, therefore, be 
varied to suit the times, and to accommodate 
"ears polite ;" and remission of sins is now 
preached by " faith alone,' ' or at the "mourn- 
er's bench ;" and thus, to keep up with the 
fashion of the times, Jordan is converted into a 
bowl ! and the sprinkling of a few drops of wa- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 31 

ter upon the head of an unbelieving babe, is 
made to take the place of believers' immersion. 
Such persons no doubt think that the Abana 
and Parphar of their own imagination are better 
than the specific Jordan of God's appointment. 

But you have not gone quite so far ; you only 
contend that the specific form of church govern- 
ment, laid down by Christ and his inspired 
Apostles, is unsuitable to all nations, and may, 
therefore, be varied to any needful extent. To 
this we object. The Apostles, in their day, 
preached the gospel among ail nations, and es- 
tablished churches every where ; yet they did 
not vary the law of the Lord to suit the social 
and political conditions of the different nations. 
The specific rules and regulations laid down for 
the government of the church were the same 
every where. The Apostles had not made the 
important discovery that these rules and regula- 
tions were unsuited to all ! 

But they were a set of old fogies, and not at 
all to be compared with the theologians of this 
progressive and refined age. But will Bishop 
Morris tell us why these rules are unsuited to 
all? 

4. Now, I maintain that every variation from 
the specific form of church government laid 
down in the New Testament, is a departure 



32 LETTERS TO 

from the law of the Lord, and inconsistent with 
the Bibfe, and therefore sinful. If David was 
right when he said, "The law of the Lord is 
perfect,' ' and James, when he calls it the " per- 
fect law of liberty/' then you are grossly mis- 
taken when you say that no form is essential, 
and that it rrfay therefore be varied to suit the 
social and political conditions of those among 
whom it prevails ! All human institutions 
change, and may be modified to suit circum- 
stances, reformed and made more perfect, as 
human experience may require. The reason is, 
because human wisdom and all human systems 
are imperfect. But God is perfect, and what- 
ever he does is done in divine wisdom, and 
therefore can never need any change or varia- 
tion to make it answer the purpose for which 
it was intended. You are therefore radically 
wrong in your assumption. 

5. But you speak of the Bible as the "con- 
stitutional law of the church generally." If I 
understand you, you assume that the different 
denominations, as such, are branches of the 
true church, and taken as a whole, # they consti- 
tute what you call "the church generally." 

You then make the several denominations, as 
branches, sustain to the Bible the same relation 
that the several States sustain to the Constitu- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 33 

tion of the United States. But are you right 
sure, Doctor, that you are correct in Ihis com- 
parison ? Will it hold good ? 

I am sure that it is a sophism. 1 . The church 
of Christ is a unit, and has no branch churches 
or denominations. The whole figure is there- 
fore a failure. The denominations, as such, are 
not branches of Christ's church. Taken as a 
whole, they do not constitute the church of 
Christ. If they did, then the church would 
have been imperfect till the last branch had 
grown up ! Again, if you are correct in your 
figure, there would be a sort of sympathy per- 
vading the whole, and a constant mutual de- 
pendence would exist throughout all the denom- 
inations. The Baptists would lean upon the 
Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists, and 
would be happy in the prosperity of all the 
branches ! 

But is this the case ? No, verily. There is 
no sympathy between the Baptist and Methodist 
churches, as every one knows. The Baptist de- 
nomination existed, and carried on all their op- 
erations for more than a hundred years, before 
the organization called the Methodist Church 
had been thought of, and could continue to do 
so if the Methodist Church was annihilated this 
moment. This proves that they are not parts 
3 



34 LETTERS TO 

of the one great whole, but mere sects, each in- 
dependent of all the others, and really in oppo- 
sition to them ! The branches of Christ's 
church are not sects or denominations, but indi- 
vidual members, as such. Jesus says to his 
disciples, not to the denominations, but to his 
individual disciples, " I am the vine, and ye are 
the branches.' ' 

2. But if the denominations, as such, were 
all branches of Christ's church, or what you 
call "the church generally," still your case is 
not made out. The Constitution of the United 
States fully contemplates the organization of new 
States, and gives them specific powers to pro- 
ceed in such a work, and when organized gives 
such new States full power to make laws and 
regulations for their own government. 

But the Bible does not contemplate the form- 
ation of branches or denominations, but on the 
contrary, strictly forbids it ; and therefore it 
gives no authority to such branches or sects to 
make "prudential rules and regulations" for 
their own government ! So far from it, all are 
required to submit implicitly to the laws of the 
Great King already made and published in the 
New Testament. You ought therefore, in jus- 
tice to yourself, to abandon your sophistical 
figure, which has led you and thousands greatly 
astray. 



BISHOP MORRIS. 35 



LETTER IV. 

Government of M. E. Church peculiar — Was not formed 
by theorizing — The result of experience and observa- 
tion — A. mere experiment — A human institution — 
Government of Christ's church no experiment — The 
Apostles made no experiments — The mourning bench 
an experiment — A mere human expedient — The Doc- 
tor brings his rules to the test — Not to the scriptural 
test, the word of God, but the test of experience and 
utility — It is the system of Methodism, and those who 
profess it, that we are examining. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D. : 

My Dear Sir — After referring to the different 
kinds of governments, both political and eccle- 
siastical, you say on page 15th : "The govern- 
ment of the Methodist Episcopal Church is pe- 
culiar. It is not entirely analogous to either of 
the above named systems, but does, as we think, 
embody the better features of them all, and ex- 
clude their objectionable ones." 

Verily, Doctor, thou hast well said, that the 
government of your church is 'peculiar I In its 
government the M. E. Church is unlike any 
modern church ; and I presume that you will 
no claim that it is like the government of the 
primitive church. It is simply " peculiar." 
But I will not anticipate. 

Next, you say of your church government, 
"It is eminently practical ; was not formed by 
theorizing, but is the result of experience." 



36 LETTERS TO 

The result of whose experience, Doctor ? 
Was it the experience of the inspired Apostles 
of the Lamb, who were called, qualified and 
sent by the Master to convert the nations, and 
build up the church, guided by the Spirit of in- 
spiration ? This I know you do not claim. No 
indeed ; you are too deeply versed in the Chris- 
tology of the New Testament, not to know that 
the inspired Apostles made no experiments in 
Christianity. They taught no Methodism, or 
any other humanism, but spake the word of the 
Lord, " as the Spirit gave them utterance/ \ and 
therefore made no mistakes that would after- 
wards be found out in the light of experience 
and have to be corrected. 

But you evidently refer to the experience of 
the founders of Methodism, and their successors, 
the bishops and clergy of your church. And 
in this you are in harmony with the language of 
your Discipline, which we find in the address to 
the members, by the bishops, at the commence- 
ment of the book of Discipline. The passage 
runs thus : 

"We believe that God's design in raising up 
the preachers called Methodists in America, was 
to reform the continent, and spread Scripture 
holiness over these lands. As a proof hereof, 
we have seen, since that time, a great and glori- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 61 

ous work of God, from New York, through the 
jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Vir- 
ginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia ; 
as also, of late, to the extremities of the Western 
and Eastern States. 

" We esteem it our duty and privilege most 
earnestly to recommend tc you, as members of 
our church, our form of Discipline, which has 
been founded on the experience of a long series 
of years; as also on the observations and re- 
marks we have made on ancient and modern 
churches. " 

This address, of which the above extract is a 
part, is signed by the six Bishops of your 
church — who are : Beverly Waugh, Thomas A. 
Morris, Edmond S. Janes, Levi Scott, Matthew 
Simpson, Edward R. Ames and Osman C. 
Baker. 

Finding your name among those appended to 
this address, you will not complain if I hold you 
responsible for the statements contained in it. 
According to your statement, then, both in your 
little book, and the Discipline, the government 
of the M. E. Church is a mere experiment, and 
of course a human institution. You teach us 
plainly that your "form of discipline has been, 
founded" Yes, " founded ;" upon what is it 
founded, Doctor ? On Jesus Christ ? On the 



38 LETTERS TO 

Bible ? No indeed, nothing of the sort. But 
on the experience of your bishops, who are all 
fallible men, and liable to err ; and on the " ob- 
servations and remarks" that you have made on 
ancient and modern churches. A glorious 
foundation for a religious system, and form of 
church government ! The experience, observa- 
tions and remarks of six men ! Not inspired 
men, but simply Methodist preachers, who lived 
more than seventeen hundred years after the 
kingdom of Christ was set up in the world ! 

That I do you no injustice, is evident from 
another statement of yours. I quote trom 15th 
page of your book. You say : " As Methodism 
arose and progressed, when the want of a rule 
was felt to aid the work, it was adopted. If its 
practical working was found to be good, it was 
retained ; but if not good, it was modified or 
abolished. Thus each prudential regulation has 
been brought to the test of experience and prac- 
tical utility, one page of which is worth more 
than a volume of theory." 

From this we see that Methodism, according 
to the statement of its senior Bishop, is not only 
an experiment, but having no theory, it was 
compelled to work in the dark, and feel its way 
along, trying to supply its imaginary wants by 
adopting " prudential rules and regulations" of 



BISHOP MORRIS. 39 

its own make, and if the experiment was satisfac- 
tory, retaining them ; and if unsatisfactory, 
modifying or abolishing them altogether, and 
trying something else which might seem to suit 
better ; and subjecting this again, in turn, to the 
same test, experience ! 

The founders of Methodism did not, and their 
successors in office do not know, when they 
adopt a rule or regulation, that it is the thing 
they need, or that it will answer the purpose for 
which it is designed ; but feeling the need of 
something, they adopt it as an experiment, know- 
ing that it can be changed or abolished, if .it 
should not work up to the expectations of its 
friends. 

By your own showing, Doctor, you have 
been experimenting for seventy years ! During 
which time you have brought Methodism, which 
was very imperfect at first, up to its present 
state of perfection and prosperity. But you do 
not even now claim that the system of Method- 
ism is perfect. But you speak of other changes 
in its polity soon likely to be made. From 
your own testimony, then, we must believe that 
the system of Methodism, as contained in your 
Discipline, and contended for by you, is an im- 
perfect, human institution — a mere experiment. 
How then, Doctor, can you believe that it will 



40 LETTERS TO 

" reform the continent and spread scriptural ho- 
liness over these lands ?" 

K"pfc so the church of Christ. Its government 
and form of discipline was no experiment. The 
Lord Jesus commissioned his Apostles, and gave 
them a divine theory, and sent them another 
comforter, the Holy Spirit, to guide them into 
all truth. According to this divine theory they 
worked, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, 
in proclaiming the glad tidings of salvation, and 
building up the church of Christ in the begin- 
ning. 

They felt no need of any "rule" to "aid them 
in the work" of converting the nations, and 
therefore never adopted any by guess ! Peter 
says, " According as his divine power hath 
given unto us all things that pertain to life and 
godliness." If Peter was right in saying that 
God had given to him and his fellow disciples 
ail things that pertained to life and godliness, it 
is evident that they could need nothing more to 
"aid them in the work." 

Let us now hear Paul's testimony upon this 
point. Paul, stand up. You are the Apostle 
to the Gentiles, and preached the gospel very 
extensively throughout the civilized world dur- 
ing; the first century of the Christian age. Am 
I right ? 



BtSHOP MORRIS. 41 

Paul. — " From Jerusalem and round unto 
Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of 
Christ.' ' 

Did you ever feel the need of a rule or any 
thing else, that you had not, to aid you in the 
work ? 

Paul. — "All scripture given by inspiration 
of God is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for 
correction, for instruction in righteousness, that 
the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly 
furnished to all good works." 

That will do, Paul. 

All the " rules and regulations " that were 
necessary to make the mau of God perfect, and 
thoroughly furnish him to ail good works, Paul 
and Peter and their fellow -laborers found in the 
holy Scriptures, and of course ihey had no need 
to draw upon their own experience and obser- 
vations for " prudential rules." They already 
possessed every thing that was necessary for the 
work, and therefore they never felt the need of 
any thing more, to aid them in the work of the 
Lord, 

Now it occurs to me, Dr. Morris, that if you 
or your co-laborers are engaged in a work, in 
the progress of which you occasionally "feel 
the need of a rule to aid you in the work," that 
God has not furnished his church, in the holy 



42 LETTERS TO 

Scriptures, you have great reason to believe that 
your work is not of God, but of man ! Do you 
say that all your prudential rules are taken from 
the Bible? I presume you will not, because if 
they were found there, you would not dare to 
"modify or abolish them." But your system be- 
ing peculiar, "feels the need" of other rules and 
regulations than those furnished by inspiration ! 
There being no such thing as Methodism in the 
days of the Apostles, they made no rules for its 
government, and consequently it has to make 
rules for its own government, adapted to its many 
peculiarities, and in this way supply its own 
wants, as experience and observation seem to 
require ! 

Was it not upon this principle of experiment^ 
ing, that you instituted the "mourning bench," 
or "anxious seat," for the purpose of praying 
penitent sinners into Christ? I believe that 
Methodism claims the honor of first introducing 
it. You were unwilling to preach "baptism for 
the remission of sins/' as the Apostles did in 
the beginning, and therefore you "felt the need 
of something to aid you in the work," and to 
supply this need, you adopted the "mourning 
bench," as an experiment ! Its practical work- 
ing was satisfactory, and you have therefore re- 
tained it, as a part of your ecclesiastical ma- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 43 

chinery ! Other parties, too, seeing your suc- 
cess in the use of it, have adopted it also, and 
thus the primitive gospel has been set aside 
and made void by a mere human expedient! 

But you do not claim divine authority for your 
" prudential rules." You inform us that all 
your prudential rules and regulations aie brought 
to the "test." Very well, that is right, provid- 
ed always that you bring them to the infallible 
test. Paul says, "Prove all things; holdfast 
that which is good." But permit me to ask you, 
iu all kindness, Doctor, to what "test" you bring 
your rules ? To the divine law, or word of God ? 
Nothing of the kind ! You say, " Thus each 
prudential regulation has been brought to the 
test of experience and practical utility." 

From this frank avowal, we see that the "test" 
to which you bring your rules is not the word 
of God, but your own experience ! Thus the 
law of the Great King is lost sight of, and in its 
stead human experience is erected into a test — a 
standard, by which you determine the utility of 
your rules and regulations. 

Considering your peculiar system of Method- 
ism, as an experiment — a mere human institu- 
tion, (and if I understand you, you claim noth- 
ing more for it,) this may all be well enough. 
Viewed from such a standpoint, your system of 



44 LETTERS TO 

church polity, wrought out in the work-shop of 
human experience and observation, is admirable, 
and commands the respect and admiration 
of the world ! Let me not, however, be misun- 
derstood. I am dealing with Methodism, as set 
forth and defended by its friends and leading 
men. I am saying nothing against the mem- 
bers of the M. E. Church, as men. It is the 
system, and not those who embrace it, that I am 
examining at present. 

I am happy to believe that there are in the 
Methodist Church many good and deeply pious 
men and women ; among whom I number many 
warm personal friends ; and I would not say a 
word in disparagement of any of them. Yet, 
believing as I do, that the peculiar system of 
Methodism is a human institution, upon the ad- 
mission of its greatest men, I can not do less, 
as an honest man, "than speak that I do know, 
and testify that I have seen." In our next we 
shall examine your "starting point." 



BISHOP MORRIS. 45 



LETTER V. 

The starting point — The love of God — Not peculiar to 
Methodism — Call to the ministry — No Methodism in 
the days of the Apostles — The Apostles proved their 
divine call by miracles — Modern pretenders to such 
call fail to prove it — Success not sufficient proof — Per- 
sonal application of redemption — Total depravity — 
Conversion without outward means — Paul examined 
as a witness, by Bishop Morris. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D. : 

My Dear Sir — I now come to your " starting 
point," on the 16th page of your little book. 
If I understand you, it is your object to give us 
a " rapid outline view of the essential parts of 
your system, and its practical workings." To 
do this, you take us to your "starting point." 
By which I understand you to mean the man- 
ner of starting a Methodist church. You say, 
ff In Methodism the starting point is, the love of 
God as developed in redemption, in the gift of 
the Spirit, and the divine call to the work of the 
ministry. Without redemption there is no pos- 
sible salvation for sinners ; without the Holy 
Spirit there could be no personal application of 
the benefits of redemption ; and without some 
one be called to teach us, we should remain ig- 
norant of our blood-bought privileges, as Paul 
to the Romans, ' For whosoever shall call upon 



46 LETTERS TO 

the name of the Lord shall be saved. How 
then shall they call on him in whom they have 
not believed ? and how shall they believe in him 
of whom they have not heard ? and how shall 
they hear without a preacher ? and how shall 
they preach except they be sent V " 

Well, this is rather a pretty start. Let us 
pause awhile and examine it. The love of God, 
as developed in the gift and death of his Son, is 
the " starting point' • in Christianity ; and there- 
fore, is not peculiar to Methodism. Christian- 
ity started seventeen centuries before Method- 
ism was instituted, and consequently you have 
no right, Doctor, to claim it as the " starting 
point' ' in Methodism. 

The gift of the Spirit was received on the day 
of Pentecost, with his miraculous gifts and pow- 
ers, and was promised as a comforter and wit- 
ness to all obedient believers, and is peculiar to 
Christianity, and you ought not to claim it as a 
peculiarity of Methodism. Every disciple of 
Christ, who has lived since the day of Pente- 
cost, has enjoyed the Holy Spirit, before as well 
as after the inauguration of Methodism by John 
Wesley, its father. And of course it is not a 
peculiarity of your peculiar system. 

As to the " divine call to the work of the 
ministry/ ' 1 remark, that if you mean by this 



BISHOP MOBfftlS. 47 

that the Apostles of the Lamb were divinely- 
called, qualified and sent to preach the gospel to 
the nations, then I have no objection to the 
statement ; but I protest against your making it 
a peculiarity of Methodism, or the " starting 
point* ' in the formation of a Methodist church. 
There was no such organism as the M. E. 
Church in the days of the -Apostles. 

But if you mean that Methodist preachers are 
divinely called, qualified and sent, as the Apos- 
tles were, then I must be permitted to withhold 
my assent till I see the proof. Now, we under- 
stand you and your preachers to claim this. 
But I know that you can never make good this 
extravagant claim. And if you can not start a 
Methodist church until your preachers can 
prove their divine call to the minis tiy, as the 
Apostles proved theirs, I am sure you would 
never be able to start it ! 

The Apostles being immersed in the Holy- 
Spirit, could speak in languages which they had 
not learned ; and they demonstrated their divine 
call by " signs and wonders, and divers mira- 
cles and gifts of the Holy Spirit," according to 
the will of God. Not so with Methodist preach- 
ers, and others who claim to be " called, quali- 
fied and sent" by the Holy Spirit. If we be- 
lieve them, it must be upon their own mere as- 



48 LETTERS TO 

sertion, and without a particle of legitimate evi- 
dence. Who is prepared for this ? 

But even this extravagant claim is not pecu- 
liar to Methodism. Other parties made the 
same pretensions long before Methodism was 
.born. Among the warring sects and parties 
who claim to be divinely called, qualified and 
sent, we find "all sorts of doctrines, preached 
by all sorts of men." How shall we decide who 
are really the called and sent ? They all claim 
it, but none of them can furnish any proof. 

One man when he rises to preach the peculiar 
dogmas of his sect, tells us that God has called 
and sent him to preach, and that he will hand it 
out to us just as God gives it to him ! He then 
proceeds to give us a dish of. high-toned Calvin- 
ism. Another rises on the following Lord's 
day, and after making similar pretensions, pro- 
ceeds to warn us against the errors of Calvin- 
sm, and, in opposition to what the first preacher 
taught, he proceeds to give us a sermon on Ar- 
minianism. A third gets up, and after thank- 
ing God that he has no "larnin" he assures us 
that God has called, qualified and sent him to 
preach the gospel to every " critter upon the 
whole living y earth" and proceeds to give us 
the peculiar dogmas of his little sect. Now, no 
one can believe that they are all called of God, 



BISHOP MORRIS. 49 

and sent to preach the absurdities of their re- 
spective systems, as they contradict each other 
most flatly ; and as they can give no evidence 
of their call, I think the only safe course is to 
reject them all, as pretenders, and cleave to the 
old preachers, who were able and did establish 
their divine call, beyond the possibility of a rea- 
sonable doubt. 

But perhaps you will say, as some of your 
preachers have said, that your divine call to the 
ministry of the Methodist Church is proved be- 
yond doubt by the success that has attended 
your ministry. That you have had great suc- 
cess in preaching the peculiarities of Methodism, 
is admitted ; but the Roman Catholics have been 
equally successful in preaching their heretical 
doctrines, both in Europe and America, and 
much more successful in her missions to China, 
Japan, and other foreign countries. 

Mahomet and his followers have had great 
success in spreading their false religion, and 
none have been more signally successful than 
Joe Smith and Brigham Young, the Mormon 
pretenders. If success is evidence of a divine 
call, then they all have it. Yet you and I both 
reject such evidence in favor of Catholicism, 
Mormonism and Islamism. And if success will 
not prove the divine call of tho advocates of 
4 



56 LETTERS TO 

these heresies, it can never prove the divinity of 
your call. 

The Lord commends a certain church, say- 
ing, " Thou hast tried them who say they are 
apostles and are not, and hast found them liars.' ' 
But I am satisfied that God has called every 
Christian to work in his great vineyard, and to 
say, " come/' according to his ability ; not by a 
dream, or a vague impression, but by his word. 
And the very best evidence that a minister can 
give that he is divinely called to the work, is, 
that he preaches the word as it was preached 
in the beginning — at the " starting point" at 
Jerusalem. 

But we affirm that God never called any man 
to preach Methodism, Presbyterianism, Baptist- 
ism, Campbellism, or any other humanism. The 
command of Christ to his disciples was, " Go, 
preach the gospel to every creature." And 
John says, " They that are of God hear us [the 
Apostles], and they that are not of God, hear 
not us ; by this we know the Spirit of truth, and 
the spirit of error." Here, then, is a divine 
test, by which every man's pretensions to a di- 
vine call may be brought. 

But you say, "Without redemption, there is 
no possible salvation for sinners ; without the 
Holy Spirit there could be no personal applica- 
tion of the benefits of redemption," 



BISHOP MORRIS. 51 

No one, Doctor, I presume, will be inclined 
to dispute with you as to the necessity of re- 
demption ; but as to the personal application of 
the beneiits of redemption, by the Holy Spirit, 
there may be some controversy. I may not 
comprehend your meaning, when you speak of 
personal application, but I suppose you mean 
about this : The sinner being totally depraved, 
is wholly unable to believe the gospel, repent of 
his sins, or do any thing else in the way of obe- 
dience to Christ ; and therefore the gospel 
preached to such sinners could not benefit them, 
or any one of them, until the Holy Spirit makes 
a direct personal application of the benefits of re- 
demption, and thus enable them to believe, re- 
pent and turn to the Lord. And this is never 
done to whole congregations at once, but one 
here and another there, in the congregation, are 
thus personally operated on, and converted to 
God : while the rest of the congregation are 
passed by, at least for the present, and left in a 
state of unbelief and sin, without the possibility 
of salvation, till the Holy Spirit shall come at 
some future time, and make a personal applica- 
tion to them, or some of them, also. Though 
Christ has died for them all, yet his death can 
avail them nothing without the " personal appli- 
cation/' 



52 LETTERS TO 

To this monstrous dogma I object. 1st. Be- 
cause the Bible nowhere teaches that all men 
are thus totally depraved. All men are more or 
less depraved, and some men are no doubt totally 
depraved, and " given over to hardness of heart 
and reprobacy of mind, that they may believe a 
lie and be damned." But some men are cer- 
tainly worse than others, which could not be 
true if all men were alike totally depraved. One 
who is totally depraved can get no worse, for the 
devil is only totally depraved ; yet Paul says 
that " wicked men and seducers will wax worse 
and worse, deceiving and being deceived." 
Hence we see that this dogma, as held by the 
M. E. Church, and others, and which involves 
the idea of a h personal application," is false, as 
it is unreasonable and unscriptural. 

2d. Because it destroys man's accountability 
to God for his actions. For if the sinner can 
not believe God until the Holy Spirit operates 
upon his heart, immediately and personally, then 
while he is waiting for this personal application 
his unbelief and disobedience can not be charged 
upon him as a sin, seeing that it is no fault of 
his. He is ready and anxious to enjoy redemp- 
tion, but can not, without the personal applica- 
tion of it to him by the Holy Spirit, and he is 
waiting for that, and can do nothing to super- 



BISHOP MORBIS. 53 

induce it. Therefore, his standing all the day- 
idle is no sin. 

3d. Because such a view of God's system of 
justification strikes down the difference between 
virtue and vice, righteousness and unrighteous- 
ness, and makes God the author of sin ; as he 
withholds the Holy Spirit from the sinner, by 
the direct personal agency of which he can 
alone obtain the ability to work righteousness. 

4th. Because it makes God " a respecter of 
persons." According to the dogma, he makes 
a personal application to some and withholds it 
from others. Yet Peter says, " JSTow I perceive 
of a truth, that God is no respecter of persons. " 

5th. Because it impeaches the Divine justice. 
For if God sends his Spirit to make a "personal 
application' ' of the benefits of redemption to 
some, while he withholds it from others, how 
can his justice be vindicated in the damnation 
of those who never had the ability to come to 
Christ, and no personal application was made to 
. them ? 

6th. Because it contradicts the Lord's word. 
It makes the personal application, by the Holy 
Spirit, the power of God unto salvation. But 
Paul says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of 
Christ, for it is the power of God unto salva- 
tion to every one that believes.' ' Here is an 



54 LETTERS TO 

irreconcilable contradiction between your system 
and Paul. 

Again the Apostle says, " It pleased God by 
the foolishness of preaching to save them who 
believe." But your dogma contradicts the 
Apostle, and substitutes the " personal applica- 
tion" for the gospel of Christ. 

I understand that when the Spirit came, at 
the "starting point" not of Methodism, but the 
church of Jesus Christ, he " convinced the 
world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment," 
and that he still does the same work, in the 
same way, not by immediate personal applica- 
tion, or by impact, but through the instrumen- 
tality of the gospel. And hence, where the 
gospel is not preached, no one is converted to 
Christ ; and where the truth is not known, no 
one is "sanctified through the truth." 

But on page 17th you proceed thus: "Now 
suppose a nation in which there is not one ex- 
perimental, practical Christian, how would the 
saving knowledge of the truth first be commu- 
nicated ? To convert souls is God's work, but 
he usually employs human instrumentality to 
teach them their lost condition and the remedy. 
We say usually, but not necessarily, for he can 
work with or without outward means." 

Yes, Doctor, God has the power to work 



BISHOP MORRIS. 55 

without means in the conversion of sinners, but 
does he do it ? Did he ever do it in a single in- 
stance ? or has he promised to do it under any 
circumstances ? Now, so far as we can recol- 
lect, we have no example on record where any- 
one was ever converted to God without " out- 
ward means." And the history of the church 
of Christ for eighteen centuries does not furnish 
us a single example of such conversion. By 
what authority, then, do you say that he * 'works 
with or without outward means" in converting 
men ? Let us now look at a few examples of 
conversion, from the New Testament, and we 
shall see that God always employed what you 
are pleased to call "outward means." 

When God undertook to convert the first 
Gentile that was converted to God, he employed 
" outward means." He sent an angel to Corne- 
lius, not to tell him what he must do to be saved, 
but to tell him where he could get the informa- 
tion. " Send to Joppa for Simon Peter, and he 
shall tell thee words, whereby thee and thy 
house shall be saved." God could have con- 
verted Cornelius by a miracle, but he did not do 
it. He could have authorized the angel to have 
taught him his duty, but he did not do it, as he 
had not commissioned angels to preach the gos- 
pel. But Peter, the Apostle, must be sent for, 



56 LBTTEBS TO 

who had the keys of the kingdom of heaven com- 
mitted to him by the Savior, that the saving 
word might be heard from his mouth. You 
know the result. 

When the Lord desired to make an Apostle 
of the wicked Saul of Tarsus, he appeared to 
him by the way, but did not tell him what he 
must do, as this was not his plan of saving men, 
but he sent him into the city of Damascus, to 
hear the saving word from the mouth of the dis- 
ciple Ananias. 

When he would introduce the gospel into 
Ethiopia, by the conversion of the eunuch, who 
was the high treasurer of the kingdom, he did 
not work without outward means, but sent 
Philip to " preach Jesus" to him. And the 
apostle Paul was commissioned to " go to the 
Gentiles, to open their eyes, and turn them from 
darkness to light and from the power of Satan 
to God." But let us put the apostle Paul upon 
the witness* stand again, for a few moments ; 
and you shall have the pleasure of asking such 
questions as you choose. You know that he 
understands the matter well, and wiJl give us 
definite answers. 

Bishop Morris— -Bro, Paul, permit me to ask 
you a few questions upon a matter about which 
Bro. Malhes and 1 differ widely. We hav3 



BISHOP MORRIS. 57 

agreed to leave the matter to you, as we both 
have confidence in your ability to answer cor- 
rectly. Will you be so kind, then, as to inform 
us whether, in your day, God converted men 
with or without means ? 

Apostle Paul — " I am not ashamed of the 
gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto 
salvation to every one who believes." 

Bishop Morris — I agree with you, Bro. Paul, 
that such is God's ordinary method of saving 
men, but have you not known many persons 
converted and saved by the immediate and per- 
sonal operation of the Spirit, without the gospel 
or any other outward means ? 

Apostle Paul — " It pleased God by the fool- 
ishness of preaching to save them that believe." 

Bishop Morris — Perhaps you are right in 
this, Bro. Paul, but I hope you will be a little 
more definite. Say then, if you please, have 
you not known persons receive faith by the 
direct operation of the Spirit, without the word 
of God ? 

Apostle Paul — "So then faith cometh by 
hearing, and hearing by the word of God." 

Bishop Morris — Bro. Paul, you seem not to 
fully understand my meaning. I will therefore 
try to be a little more definite in my questions. 
I will ask you, then, if in your travels in heathen 



58 LETTKES TO 

lands you have not now and then met with 
faithful, praying Christians, who had never 
seen a preacher, nor heard the word in any 
way ? 

Apostle Paul — " How then shall they call 
on him in whom they have not believed ? And 
how shall they believe in him of whom they 
have not heard ? And how shall they hear 
without a preacher ? And how shall they preach 
except they be sent ?" 

Bishop Morris — Why, Bro. Paul, you sur- 
prise me ! I have accused Bro. Mathes here of 
being a Campbellite, and you agree with him 
precisely. Indeed, Bro. Paul, if you were not 
the "apostle Paul," I should say that you were 
a H Campbellite." 



BISHOP MORRIS. 59 



LETTER VI. 

The little organization — What code shall they adopt — 
Let God do his own work — The contrast between the 
Jerusalem church and the " little organization" — 
Simple code based on the Bible — The Bible itself a 
perfect code — " Little organization" must agree on 
standards of faith — The standard of faith of the 
church of Christ was established in the beginning — 
Must be born again — The name Christian — Uncon- 
verted persons are received into the M. E. Church — 
Infant church membership — Infants not allowed to 
come to the Lord's table — The " capital hit.' ' 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D. : 

My Dear Sir — I now come to your " little 
organization." On the 1 9th page of your little 
book, you suppose the case of a number of per- 
sons .converted in a nation where, previously, 
there was no church, these being the first fruits 
of the nation to God. The number of converts 
making it necessary that they should be organ- 
ized into a church, (Methodist Episcopal Church, 
I presume you mean.) 

In such an attempt of course there must be 
some form about it, and some understanding as 
to the " terms of fellowship," etc. You say: 
" When the converts are multiplied from units 
to tens, some kind of organization becomes ne- 
cessary to maintain unity and peace. They 
may begin with a record of all the converted 



t)0 LETTERS TO 

persons proposed for membership. These form 
the nucleus of the church. The missionary pas- 
tor and his children in the gospel are of one 
heart and mind. To remain so, they must adopt 
some simple code based on the Bible, defining 
their faith and practice. They must agree on 
the scriptural standards of morality and godli- 
ness, to prevent future difficulty," etc. 

Now let us pause a moment and look at your 
" little organization. " As the nucleus of a 
Methodist Church, it may do'very well, but in 
some respects it differs widely from the first 
Christian church at Jerusalem, in the beginning. 
And you will not consider me uncharitable for 
showing you, and others, the contrast. But be- 
fore proceeding to do so, let me say to you, Doc- 
tor, that you have only given us the case of a 
"little organization," who have a missionary 
pastor, and of course such converts have not 
been gathered without "outward means." 

How then would you proceed in the other 
case which you say may occur ? You say, in 
a nation where there are no converted persons, 
." God must convert some without any outward 
means." Very well, suppose this be done, how 
. must they proceed to organize ? and what 
" code" must they adopt? They have neither 
missionary pastor nor Bible, nor have they ever 



BISHOP MORRIS. 61 

heard of the name of Jesus. If they pray, they 
must " call on him in whom they have not be- 
lieved." And if they have any faith, they must 
have "believed in him of whom they had not 
heard." And if they have heard, they must 
have " heard without a preacher." 

Now if converts can be made in this way, by 
the direct personal agency of the Holy Spirit, 
without any outward means, and an organiza- 
tion effected without the gospel, without a 
preacher, and without any outward instrument- 
ality, or means of grace, as you leach that it 
can, could not God carry on the work in the 
same way to any extent, till the whole nation 
and all other nations would be converted ? If 
so, we might as well disband all our Bible and 
missionary societies at once, and let God do his 
own work, in his own way, without any " out- 
ward means" and without our assistance ! 

I will now proceed to point out some of the 
points of difference between your " little organi- 
zation" and the church of Christ, in the begin- 
ning. This may be a work of supererogation, 
as you do not claim that the M. E. Church is 
the church of Christ, or that it is even like it. 
Note the following particulars, then : 

1 . You claim that your converts are made by 
the personal application of the benefits of re- 



62 • LETTERS TO 

demption, by the immediate operation of the 
Spirit, either with or without "outward means." 
But the converts made to Christianity in the 
beginning (day of Pentecost and onward) were 
made by the use of the means which God had 
ordained, namely, the Gospel. 

2. The "simple code" adopted by your little 
organization, you say is "based on the Bible." 
But the simple code adopted by the church of 
Christ, in the beginning, was the word of God 
itself; and not something based on it. You 
form your own code, which is of course human, 
and imperfect. While the code adopted by the 
church of Christ is divine, and furnished them 
by the great Head of the church, and is the 
"perfect law of liberty." 

3. You confess frankly that your code of laws 
and regulations are imperfect, and have to be 
modified, changed, or abolished altogether, when 
their practical workings are found not to be sat- 
isfactory. 

But the Christian code being perfect, like its 
Author, always works well, and can never be 
modified, changed or abolished during the me- 
diatorial reign of Christ. " If any man shall 
add to the words of the prophecy of this book, 
God shall add to him the plagues that are writ- 
ten in the book ; and if any man shall take' away 



BISHOP MORRIS. 63 

from the words of the prophecy of this book, 
God shall take away his part out of the book of 
life/' etc. 

4. You say that your ** little organization" 
" must define their faith," etc. But as the 
church of Christ adopts the " faith once deliv- 
ered to the saints, " and the practice ordained by 
Christ and his Apostles, she has no need to call 
a council, to fix definitions, and establish terms 
of fellowship, as the whole matter is clearly de- 
fined in the Lord's holy word. Jesus says, 
" teaching them [the baptized] to observe all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you." 

5. You tell us that your little organization 
must also " agree upon standards of morality 
and godliness, to prevent future difficulty." 

But the church of Christ, taking the Bible 
alone as her infallible u standard of morality and 
godliness/' has no trouble in establishing and 
agreeing upon " standards of morality and god- 
liness." Her standard was established in the 
beginning by the Holy Spirit, and needs no ad- 
justing. 

6. So far as you inform us, your converts are 
made without baptism, for you make no allusion 
to that holy ordinance. Not so the church of 
Christ. Into her communion none can enter 
constitutionally, without baptism, Jesus says 



64 LETTERS TO 

in the great commission : " Go teach all nations, 
baptizing [immersing] them into the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Spirit." Again: "Except a man be born of 
water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the 
kingdom of God." 

Peter said to the inquiring multitude on the 
day of Pentecost, which was the true beginning 
day, when the reign of Christ as king began : 
"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in 
the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of 
sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Spirit." "Then they who gladly re- 
ceived the word were baptized, and the same 
day there were added unto them about three 
thousand souls." None added without immer- 
sion. 

n . The name of your " little organization" is 
" Methodist Episcopal Church." But the 
church of Christ wears the name of her illustri- 
ous founder, Christ. "And the disciples were 
first called Christians at Antioch." "Then 
Agrippa said to Paul, Almost thou persuadest 
me to be a Christian." Not a Methodist, a 
Baptist, a Presbyterian, or a Campbellite, but 
simply a Christian. Mark the difference, Doc- 
tor. Now let us hear Peter on the name ; he 
says, "If any man suffer as a Christian, let 






BISHOP MORRIS. 65 

him not be ashamed. " But I think if a disciple 
of Christ should assume the sectarian name of 
Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, or Campbell- 
ite, and should suffer on that account, he would 
have great reason to be ashamed. 

Once more on the name. Christ is the hus- 
band, and the church is the bride ; therefore as 
a dutiful and chaste bride, she wears the name 
of her husband, and rejects all other names, as 
unsuited to her dignity. She is, therefore, sim- 
ply called Christian, after Christ, the glorious 
husband and head of the church. 

8. In your church unconverted persons are 
received to membership. Persons who are only 
seeking — "desiring to flee from the wrath to 
come." And even disorderly persons, who 
have been excluded from your church for gross 
immorality and wickedness, can turn round im- 
mediately and join your church again, on pro- 
bation, without confessing the wrongs for which 
they were expelled. Several examples of this 
kind have fallen under my own observation. 

Not so the church of Christ. Jesus says, 
" Except ye be converted, and become as little 
children, ye shall in no case enter into the king- 
dom of heaven." Again, "Except a man be 
born again, he can not see the kingdom of God." 
And Peter says, "Repent and be converted, 
5 



66 LETTEBS TO 

every one of you, that your sins may be blotted 
out, when the times of refreshing shall come 
from the presence of the Lord." 

The prophet Jeremiah, in speaking of the 
church of Christ under the new covenant, says : 
" And it shall come to pass that every man 
shall not teach his neighbor, and every man his 
brother, saying, Know the Lord ; for all shall 
know me, from the least of them to the greatest 
of them." Every member of Christ's church 
must " know the Lord." Not an unconverted 
man or woman, nor an unconscious babe, in the 
church. 

It was not so in the Jewish church, nor is it 
so in the M. E. Church, and many other mod- 
ern religious bodies. Infants born of Jewish 
parents were in the Jewish church by natural 
birth — a birth of flesh and blood. Being "born 
after the flesh," they were entitled to circum- 
cision on the eighth day, not to make them 
members of the Jewish church, but because they 
were members. And all such have to be "taught 
to know the Lord." So also it is in your 
church, Doctor ; the condition of membership 
as to infants is, " to be born after the flesh," 
one. or both parents being members. If I un- 
derstand you, infants are not sprinkled by your 
ministry to bring them into your church, but 



BISHOP MORRIS. 67 

because they are already in it, upon the above 
condition. This being so, you have many thou- 
sands in your church who are recognized as 
members in some sense, who do not "know the 
Lord," and whom you must teach, "saying, 
Know the Lord." 

9. In the M. E. Church, thousands who are 
recognized as members in some sense, are not 
permitted to come to the Lord's table. But in 
the church of Christ all are not only permitted 
to come to the Lord's table, but commanded to 
do so. Jesus says to them all, "Do this in re- 
membrance of me." 

Let these nine points of difference suffice for 
the present. Other points of comparison will 
come up, as we progress in our review. 

On page 22d you discuss the " terms of mem- 
bership in the M. E. Church." You say : "Our 
fathers, who gave us the outline of our present 
system of Methodist discipline, made a capital 
hit when they adopted the rule requiring a pro- 
bation of at least six months prior to regular 
membership, a rule still enforced in all cases, 
except such, as bring letters of recommendation 
from orthodox sister churches as worthy mem- 
bers. The condition of admission on trial is, 
< a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to 
be saved from sin.' " 



68 LETTERS TO 

You have well named this a "hit;*' and you 

think it a " capital hit." It has worked well, 
and you have retained it, not because it was of 
God, but of the fathers, and its practical work- 
ing satisfactory. You do not claim divine au- 
thority for this hit, but give the fathers of Meth 
odism all the credit of its discovery. The Bible 
furnishes no sort of countenance to it. John 
Wesley made the " hit." He guessed at it, and 
made the hit, and it has proved that Mr. Wes- 
ley was a good judge of human nature. It was 
indeed " a capital hit !" 

I need not tell one of your experience and 
Scripture knowledge, that there was no such ar- 
rangement, or hit, in the church of Christ, in 
the beginning. None were received into her 
fellowship but those who were converted and 
saved from their sins. None were received on 
six months' trial ! All who were received at all, 
were taken into full fellowship and were expect- 
ed to " continue steadfast in the Apostles' doc- 
trine, in fellowship, in breaking of bread, and in 
the prayers." Is it not wonderful, Dr. Morris, 
that the Apostles, under the inspiration and 
guidance of the Holy Spirit, did not make this 
"capital fiiff" of six months' probation, in or- 
der to membership in the church. If they had 
made the hit, we should no doubt havo some ac- 



I 

BISHOP MORRIS. 69 

count of it in the following cases, where persons 
ioined the church, who did not bring letters of 
commendation from other orthodox sister 
churches. 

When Saul of Tarsus was converted, he went 
up into the city of Damascus and immediately 
commenced preaching the glorious gospel of 
Christ. No six months ' probation in his case ; 
he was fully converted, and a full member the 
very first day. 

The three thousand that were immersed on 
the day of Pentecost, and added to them, were 
not probationers, on six months' trial ; but were 
taken into full membership that very day. In 
proof of this we are told by Luke that " they 
continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine, 
and the fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, 
and in the prayers ; and the Lord added to them 
daily the saved." 

There never was a more favorable opportunity 
to make the capital hit than the day of Pente- 
cost. It was the beginning day, and Jerusalem 
was the beginning place. The Apostles were 
the divinely authorized ambassadors of heaven, 
called, qualified and sent by Jesus himself. And 
in a special manner had Jesus given the " keys 
of the kingdom of heaven' ' to Peter, and said to 
him, " Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, 



70 LETTERS TO 

shall be loosed in heaven ; and whatsoever thou 
shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven.' * 
Peter stood up with the eleven, holding the keys 
of the kingdom of heaven, to bind and loose, 
and before him were three thousand believers, 
all anxious to " flee from the wrath to come, and 
to be saved from their sins." They possessed 
all the qualifications of probationers, according 
to your rules in such cases. 

If Peter had understood and approved of this 
capital hit of yours, he certainly would have 
applied it on that occasion; and if he had, then we 
should have felt bound to have used it also. If 
he had said to the three thousand inquirers, "If 
you desire to flee from the wrath to come, and 
to be saved irom your sins, you can join us on 
six months' trial, and if your moral deportment 
is right, you can then become full members, if 
you choose;" then you would have some au- 
thority. But you know that he did no such 
thing. They said, " Men and brethren, what 
shall we do ?" And Peter answered and said 
unto them, " Repent and be baptized, [immers- 
ed,] every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ, (eis) in order to the remission of sins, 
and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." 
(See Acts ii.) 

Again : Cornelius and his house were con- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 71 

verted before they joined the church. Corne- 
lius was the first Gentile converted, and if this 
capital Jiity which you admit your fathers made, 
had been of God, we should certainly have had 
an example of it in the house of Cornelius the 
Gentile. But so far from it, they were baptized 
in the name of Jesus Christ, and taken into full 
fellowship the first day. And without intro- 
ducing other examples, I affirm positively that 
the law of the Lord makes no provision for tak- 
ing into his church men and women on six 
months' trial, as probationers, upon the condi- 
tion of their " desiring to flee from the wrath to 
come, and to be saved from sin," or upon any 
other condition. The primitive church took 
into her bosom no unconverted seekers. " They 
shall all know me, from the least of them to the 
greatest of them." 

But, " Honor to whom honor is due." You 
say the "Fathers made a capital hit" etc. 
Let them have the honor of it. It is of the 
fathers. 



72 LETTERS TO 



LETTER VII. 

Probation — Probation more fully considered — Condi- 
tions of membership on trial — Not of God, but of the 
fathers — It is unscriptural — It is impracticable, as a 
mere human expedient — It nullifies the law of the 
Lord — Makes void the gospel of Christ— It shuts out 
of the church those whom God has received — It opens 
the door wide for imposition — The gospel plan much 
more simple — The conditions of full membership — 
The recommendation of a leader — Baptism — It is a 
human institution — Inskip's testimony — Examination 
before the congregation — The infant members of M. 
E. Church can give no assurance — Sponsors — God- 
fathers and godmothers — No example of the baptism 
of a single infant in New Testament. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D. : 

My Dear JSir — We now come to the " condi- 
tion of membership on trial," which your fathers 
gave you, and which you still retain. These 
conditions you state correctly thus : " A desire 
to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved 
from sin." 

And you tell us that this desire to become 
available must be evidenced in three ways : first, 
by doing no harm ; by avoiding evil of every 
kind, etc. Sacondly, by doing good, etc. 
Thirdly, by attending upon all the ordinances of 
God, etc. And you add, " If one pastor knows 
the candidate to come up to this standard, he 
can admit him at once on trial." 



BISHOP MORRIS. 73 

Now my dear Bishop, you will permit me, in 
all candor and kindness, to examine this pecu- 
liarity of your very peculiar system. In my 
last letter, I noticed it as an item of difference, 
simply, between your church and the church of 
Christ ; but I wish to look more narrowly into 
it, that we may understand its practical work- 
ings. 

This is certainly one of your peculiarities, as 
I find nothing analogous to it in any other relig- 
ious system of modern times ; and you do not 
pretend to find an example for it in the primitive 
church, or to have any divine authority for it ; 
for you say the fathers made it, and it was a 
"capital hit." Such a thing as a "probation- 
ary membership" was wholly unknown in the 
church of Christ in the beginning. The idea 
seems to have originated with Mr. Wesley, the 
father of Methodism. And considered as a mere 
stroke of human policy, it was a capital hit. 
But as it lays claim to no divine precept or ex- 
ample, we must look at it only in the light of 
human reason. 

As it is of the fathers, and not cf God, you 
will admit that we may lawfully examine it as a 
mere human institution, and that we have just 
as good a right to judge of it as the fathers had, 
who made and adopted it, as a peculiarity of the 



74 LETTERS TO 

Methodist system, or as you have, who main- 
tain it, asa" capital hit." 

I object to the whole scheme of probationary 
membership, 1st. Because it is unscriptural. 
Not a shadow of a shade of evidence of any thing 
of the kind can be produced from the New Tes- 
tament. 2d. Because it is impracticable, even 
considered as a mere human expedient. As no 
one who is a mere seeker, possessing all the con- 
ditions of probationary membership — that is, 
" a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to 
be saved from sin" — but who is not a Christian, 
does or can "attend upon all the ordinances of 
God." No Christian, enjoying the evidence of 
pardon and the hope of heaven, comforted by 
the Holy Spirit, can do any more than this. 
Bishop Morris himself, with all his knowledge 
and religious experience, can do no more than 
"attend upon all the ordinances of God." How 
then, Doctor, can you expect an unconverted 
sinner to do it ? He may when " men can ga- 
ther grapes of thorns or figs of thistles !" 

3d. I object to it because it sets aside the law 
of the Lord, and makes void the gospel of Christ. 
The law of the Lord admits all penitent believ- 
ers, who " desire to flee from the wrath to come, 
and to be saved from sin," to an immediate 
union with the church of Christ, through obe- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 75 

dience to the gospel. Not as mere outside seek- 
ers, but as members of the body of Christ, and 
as children of God. Witness the three thousand 
on the day of Pentecost, the jailor, Lydia, Saul 
of Tarsus, the Samaritans, Corinthians, and Cor- 
nelius the Gentile. It makes void the gospel of 
Christ, because it tells the sinner that he need 
not come now into the enjoyment of pardon and 
the fellowship of the church, but may safely 
wait until he has served a probation of six 
months. 

While all the gracious invitations of the gos- 
pel are, "now," "to-day," "Now is the ac- 
cepted time," not six months hence ! Dr. Mor- 
ris, will you please inform us what relation your 
probationers sustain to your church during their 
six months of probation ? You tell us they are 
not members, and can not be, in the full sense 
of that term, until the six months of probation 
are over. Suppose the probationer should die 
before his six months is out, he would die out 
of your church ; then what becomes of him ? 
If you say he would be accepted of God, and 
received into glory, then you admit that your 
rule upon this subject is wrong, as it shuts out 
of your church those whom God accepts as his 
children. 

But you admit that these probationers are 



76 LETTERS TO 

sinners, and unconverted. They only " desire 
to flee from the wrath to come." They are not 
saved fiom their sins, but desire to be ; how 
then can they be saved during their probation, 
if they should die ? You will not say that they 
are saved in their sins. If not, they must be 
saved, if saved at all, by a miracle ; which is 
unreasonable and in opposition to the teachings 
of the Holy Spirit. 

How different to your practice was the pro- 
ceedings of the inspired Apostles. When the 
anxious multitude inquired, "what must we 
do ?" (see Acts ii. 37, 38,) they certainly gave 
good evidence of a " desire to flee from the wrath 
to come, and to be saved from sin." If Bishop 
Morris had been in Peter's place, at that time, 
I suppose he would most likely have answered 
them in some such words as these : " Come 
forward to the anxious seat, and we will pray 
for you, and perhaps God will have mercy upon 
you and pardon your sins ; and then you who 
get religion, and you who get no religion, can 
become probationary members of our church, 
for six months on trial, provided you evince ' a 
desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be 
saved from sin/ and at the end of the six months' 
trial, if you still evince such a desire, we will 
take you into full fellowship, though you may 
have no religion." 



BISHOP MORRIS, 77 

But Peter and the rest of the Apostles, not 
understanding this " capital hit" of your fa- 
thers, admitted the whole three thousand to 
baptism and full membership and fellowship in 
the church the very same day. That they were 
all in fellowship, is evident from a declaration of 
Luke in the same chapter. Referring to those 
persons added on that day, he says, " And they 
continued steadfastly in the fellowship," etc. 
They were in "the fellowship," or they could 
not have continued in it. 

4th. Once more ; I object to this rule of your 
church, because, in my judgment, it opens wide 
the door for imposition ; the very thing, I pre- 
sume, that it was intended to guard. One of 
your members, perhaps a preacher, commits 
some grievous offense against the peace and dig- 
nity of your church. He is brought before 
your tribunals, and convicted of the sins charged 
against him. He is admonished, but refuses to 
repent and acknowledge the sins proved against 
him, but continues to deny them in the face of 
positive testimony, and he is therefore expelled 
from your church, as unworthy of your fellow- 
ship, to be to you " as a heathen man and a pub- 
lican." Then, sir, there is nothing in your 
system to prevent such profane man from join- 
ing again the very same day on probation ; pro- 



78 LETTERS TO 

vided he " evinces a desire to flee from the wrath 
to come, and to be saved from sin." And some 
have availed themselves of this rule of yours, to 
my certain knowledge, to the great chagrin of 
the members generally, but it could not be 
helped. 

How much more simple the good old gospel 
plan, to admit all into full fellowship in the 
church immediately who believe the gospel, re- 
pent of their sins, confess Jesus before men, and 
are baptized "into the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And if 
such person sin, so as to justify the church in 
withdrawing her fellowship from him, he can 
only be restored by repentance, confession and 
prayer. 

CONDITIONS OF FULL MEMBERSHIP. 

You say, " The conditions of full member- 
ship after probation, are three : First, a recom- 
mendation of a leader, with whom the candidate 
has met at least six months on trial, who has 
every opportunity to know his religious state, 
daily walk, and general bearing. Secondly, he 
must be consecrated to God in baptism, either 
in infancy or adult age, this being the initiating 
ordinance into the visible church of Christ. 
Thirdly, he must on examination by the minister 
in charge, before the church, give satisfactory 



BISHOP MORRIS. 79 

assurance both of the correctness of his faith and 
his willingness to observe and keep the rules of 
the church." And you add, "These condi- 
tions are few and simple, but indispensable ; and 
taken altogether they show conclusively that 
our church is at least as well guarded against 
imposition in the reception of members as any 
other church." 

If you mean to compare your church with 
other modern churches, which are also governed 
by human laws, rules and regulations, like it- 
self, I am willing to admit the correctness of the 
comparison, and the conclusion you draw from 
it. But if by the expression, "any other 
church/ ' you aim to include the primitive 
church, governed by the perfect law of the 
Lord, and those occupying the same ground 
now, having the same faith and practice, and 
governed by the same divine code of laws, and 
wearing f he same divine name, " Christian," 
then I must deny your conclusion — you are not 
as well guarded against imposition. But I de- 
sire to make a few remarks upon your condi- 
tions of " full membership." 

" The recommendation of a leader with whom 
the candidate has met at least six months on 
trial." 

This first condition establishes beyond a doubt 



80 LETTERS TO 

the fact that your church is peculiar, and unlike 
the church of Christ. Where did the Apostles 
ever require such recommendation of a leader? 
What leaders had lived and held class meetings 
six months before the day of Pentecost, so that 
they might recommend the three thousand con- 
verts who were added to the church the same 
day ? These converts had not been giving evi- 
dence for the previous six months that they 
" desired to flee from the wrath to come, and to 
be saved from sin ;" but on the contraiy, only 
fifty days before, many of them had participated 
in the murder of the Lord Jesus Christ, saying, 
" his blood be upon us and upon our children." 
Yet they "gladly received the word, and were 
baptized, and the same day were added to them 
about three thousand souls." 

Your rule, or first condition of membership, 
would have compelled the " three thousand' ' to 
have joined on trial merely, and to have waited 
at least six months, in order to have procured 
the necessary recommendation from their class 
leaders, so that they might have come into the 
church in full fellowship, as full members ! 
But the church of Christ had no condition re- 
quiring a probation of six months, and so they 
were admitted at once. With what leader had 
the eunuch met six months, before Philip bap* 



BISHOP MORRIS. 81 

tized him and received him into full fellowship ? 
None. Can you furnish me with a single ex- 
ample where any of the converts made to Chris- 
tianity by the Apostles were required to bring 
"a recommendation of a leader with whom they 
had met for at least six months V s You know, 
Doctor, that you can not furnish an example, 
and of course you will not try ; and yet you say 
that " these conditions are indispensable !" In-~ 
dispensable they may be to admission into your 
church as full members ; but the church of the 
living God has no such conditions. 

Your second condition is "baptism either in 
infancy or adult age." But why, Doctor, do 
you make baptism, either in the infant or adult, 
a condition of full membership ? Because you 
say, it is the " initiating ordinance into the visi- 
ble church of Christ." 

This is a very good reason, provided the 
Methodist Church is the church of Christ. But 
this, as I have proved in a former letter, you do 
not claim, nor does your Discipline nor any of 
your prominent writers claim it. Mr. J. L. In- 
skip, one of your prominent authors, in his book 
on Methodism, on 65th page, says of your 
polity: ^ . 

" A more wise or better arranged" system of 
religious and moral enterprise, could not have 
6 



82 LETTERS TO 

been conceived. Of course, like all other hu- 
man institutions, it has defects and imperfec- 
tions." The reader will please note particularly 
the expression, in the above quotation, " like all 
other human institutions" According, then, 
to this oracle of Methodism, the whole system of 
Methodistic polity, which you, Bishop Morris, 
defend and extol so highly, is a mere human in- 
stitution , wise and well arranged. 

But allow me to ask you, Bishop, if baptism 
be the initiating ordinance into the visible 
church, can any one get into it who has not 
been baptized ? And if infants are entitled to 
baptism, as you claim, are they not thereby ini- 
tiated into the visible church of Christ ? And 
are they not, as a matter of course, entitled to 
full membership ? If so — and I think you will 
admit the correctness of the conclusion — then 
what becomes of your "six months' trial," and 
"recommendation of a leader" with whom they 
must have met at least six months on trial ? 

And worse still ; you do not even pe:mit your 
infant members to " attend upon all the ordi- 
nances of God." You do not permit them to 
come to the Lord's table, which you will cer- 
tainly admit is one of the ordinances of God, 
and is enjoined upon every member of Christ's 
body, " from the least to the greatest of them." 



BISHOP MORRIS. 83 

If the Lord's supper is an ordinance of God, and 
enjoined upon all the members of his church, it 
must be the duty of all to partake of it. If you 
are correct, then, in making baptism a condition 
of full membership, and infants have a right to 
it, as you say, then they become full members 
the moment they are baptized, and entitled to all 
the privileges of the church, and all the ordi- 
nances of the house of God, of which they are 
now full members. Whoever, then, would stand 
in the way and hinder these babes, (if they are 
initiated into the visible church by baptism, as 
you teach,) from partaking of the emblems of 
the broken body and shed blood of the Lord, 
are guilty of a great sin. If you admit them to 
baptism, you can not reject them from the 
Lord's table, as both go together. What an- 
swerest thou, Doctor ? 

Your third and last condition of full member- 
ship is, also, one for which you have neither 
precept nor example in the word of God. When 
or where did the Apostles ever examine a candi- 
date for membership before the whole congrega- 
tion, and require him to give " assurances of the 
correctness of his faith," and his willingness to 
keep and observe all the rules of the church, be- 
fore they would receive him into full member- 
ship ? Never ! nowhere ! They simply re- 



84 LETTERS TO 

quired penitent believers to confess their faith 
in Christ, and upon such confession they bap- 
tized them and received them into the fellowship 
of the church, as thou knowest very well. 

Will Bishop Morris be so kind as to inform 
us how the infant members of his church can 
"give assurances of the correctness of their 
faith," when they have no faith, corre&t or in- 
correct ? 

These infants, according to your peculiar sys- 
tem, have been initiated into your church by 
baptism, and consequently are in full fellowship. 
But how did they, at their initiation, give you 
assurance of their willingness to observe and to 
keep all the rules and regulations of your 
church ? They know nothing about your rules. 
Or will you fall back upon the old exploded no- 
tion of "sponsors," "godfathers and godmo- 
thers," to answer for the babes ? I see no other 
chance for you. But you will admit that this 
was a human contrivance, and a very profane 
one at that. For it often ' happened, in time 
past, and even now in the Episcopal Church, 
and the Roman Catholic Church, that wicked 
and profane men and women stand and answer 
for the child, as " godfathers and godmothers." 
No, you will not contend for this. 

Well, then, what will you do with the case ? 



BISHOP MORRIS. 85 

Will you say that infants are not initiated into 
the church by baptism, as full members ? Then 
you admit that infants are not scriptural sub- 
jects of baptism, and of course that you have no 
scriptural right to baptize them. But whatever 
may be your position upon this point, one thing 
you know, Doctor, and that is, that you can not 
produce a single example in the New Testament 
of the baptism of a single infant, or of the re- 
ception of a single infant into the church of 
Christ. It is a human tradition, not of God, but 
of the fathers. 



86 LETTERS TO 



LETTER VIII. 

BILL OF RIGHTS. 

Persons joining the M. E. Church acquire right — An in- 
terest in all the church property, etc — It amounts to 
twenty millions of dollars — Each member's interest 
in church property about $2^ — Deeds to church prop- 
erty, how made — Religion of Jesus offers no worldly 
inducements — All Christian privileges were fully en- 
joyed long before the M. E Church was organized — 
The class meetings — Love feasts — The Christian 
"feast of charity" — Infancy of Methodism, etc. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D. : 

My Dear Sir — We now come to the consid- 
eration of your " bill of rights." On the 27th 
page of your little book you say : 

"By becoming a member of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, you acquire rights which 
you never had before, and never could have pos- 
sessed without such membership.' ' 

Have we the right to worship God, as his 
word and our conscience may dictate, without 
becoming members of the M. E. Church ? We 
have. Has any one but a Methodist a right to 
pray ? Yes, all true believers have a right to 
cry " Abba, Father.' ' Have we the right to 
obey the Savior and enjoy " the love of God shed 
abroad in our hearts" without joining the M. E. 
Church ? We have. Have we a right to the 
Spirit of adoption, without being Methodists ? 



BISHOP MORRI3, 87 

We have. In a word, have we not all the rights, 
privileges and immunities of citizenship in the 
church of Jesus Christ, and access to all the 
means of grace that God has ordained, for our 
spiritual life, growth and improvement, in all 
that pertains to life and godliness, without he- 
coming members of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church ? Certainly we have ; and I feel confi- 
dent that you, my dear Bishop, will most cheer- 
fully admit it. There were no Methodists in 
the world for some five thousand seven hun- 
dred years after the creation of the world, and 
yet those who obeyed God were blessed and 
saved. 

The Christian church, from the day of Pen- 
tecost till the inauguration of Methodism in the 
eighteenth century, enjoyed all the means of 
grace, and all the ordinances ordained by Jesus 
Christ, and as Peter expresses it, they had "all 
things that pertain to life and godliness.' ' And 
yet they were not members of your church, as 
there was no such church in existence during 
all that period. 

What wonderful "rights," then, Doctor, have 
you to offer in the M. E. Church that were not 
fully enjoyed by the primitive Christians ; or 
that can not be enjoyed now, just as well and 
as completely, out of the M. E. Church, as in 
it ? You say : 



88 LETTERS TO 

" And first, you secure an interest in all the 
church property, which, in houses of worship, 
parsonages, cemeteries, and institutions of learn- 
ing, with their ground plats, amount to at least 
twenty millions of dollars." 

"Well, we must own up, I suppose, that no one 
has any interest in your vast church property, 
but the members of your church. In some 
neighborhoods, villages and towns, appeals have 
been made to the liberality of the outside com- 
munity, and members of other sects, and to our 
brotherhood, to aid in building your houses of 
worship ; and they have done so, under the im- 
pression that the^- would have some interest in 
them ; but they have generally found out their 
mistake after the house was built. 

You claim, I believe, to have a million of 
members. Then according to your statement 
above, each member has an acquired right to an 
interest in your church property to the amount 
of twenty dollars ! Now I ask you, in all hu- 
mility, my dear Bishop, in bringing this item 
forward in the manner you have, does it not 
look a little, just a little, like offering a premium 
of twenty dollars in property to any one who 
will join your Methodist Episcopal Church ? 
It certainly does look a little that way ; but 
still I do not charge you with such a design. 



BISHOP MORRIS. 89 

But let us look a little after this property ques- 
tion. 

It is not generally known, perhaps, that all 
your deeds for church property are so made to 
the M. E. Church in general, that if every mem- 
ber of the church in any particular locality were 
to change their religious views, and as a church 
without a dissenting voice should agree to take 
the word of God as their only guide and direc- 
tory from earth to heaven, and should unani- 
mously, class leader, preacher and all, take the 
name " Christian/ ' as given by divine authority 
to the disciples of Christ, first at Antioch, and 
which was worn exclusively by them for many 
centuries — I say, if they should do all this 
unanimously, the Methodist Episcopal Church 
could come from other localities and take pos- 
session of their meeting house, and turn the 
real owners of the property, who had built the 
house with their own labor and money, out of 
doors ! 

Therefore, to retain this acquired right in 
church property, to even the twenty dollars, the 
initiated must continue to profess the doctrines 
of the M. E. Church, as set forth in the twenty- 
five articles of her Discipline, and conform to 
her peculiar rules and regulations. Thus you 
Bee, Doctor, that in your church all progress in 



90 LETTERS TO 

the knowledge of the truth is defeated, and you 
become stereotyped in the doctrines and tradi- 
tions of your fathers. 

But after all, Doctor, is not this rather an ap- 
peal to denominational pride, and to love of 
worldly aggrandizement? Is it not, in effect, 
saying : We are a rich and powerful denomina- 
tion. We are very numerous, and own by deed 
at least twenty millions of property. By uniting 
w r ith us, as a member, you will become a part- 
ner and joint heir in this vast inheritance of the 
M. E. Church. 

The religion of Jesus offers no inducements 
of a worldly nature to any one to become a Chris- 
tian. The Lord himself was poor, so poor that 
he had not where to lay his head. And he dis- 
tinctly told his disciples that they must forsake 
all and follow him. Their houses and lands 
had to be given up, yea, and their own lives 
also, if the cause required the sacrifice. 

Paul in his preaching talked not of worldly 
honor, or riches ; but of stripes and imprison- 
ments, chains and dungeons, poverty and wretch- 
edness in this world ; but a crown of glory in 
the world to come, with everlasting life. But 
he never boasted of the wealth of the church, 
in meeting houses, cemeteries, institutions of 
learning, ground plats and parsonages, as an in- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 91 

ducement to persons to join the church. He 
was so poor himself that he " had no certain 
dwelling place.' ' And looking over the whole 
ground, he decided that "the love of money is 
the root of all evil." And the Lord said to his 
disciples, " Lay not up for yourselves treasures 
on earth." But I will press this matter no fur- 
ther at present, as I suppose you only mentioned 
your wealth incidentally, and did not really in- 
tend to offer a premium in church property to 
induce persons to join your church. But let us 
now hear the second item in your " bill of 
rights." You say : 

"Secondly, by becoming a member of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, you have acquired 
a full share in all her privileges. This includes 
an interest in her sympathies, her prayers, and 
her ample means of religious instruction and en- 
couragement ; in her ordinances, including the 
holy eucharist, and in her powerful ministry 
and pastoral oversight," etc. 

On this point I need say but little, as you 
will admit that Christian sympatic prayers, 
and ample means of religious instruction and en- 
couragement, the ordinances of the house of 
God, including the Lord's supper, or " eucha- 
rist," as you term it, with the ministry of the 
word and pastoral oversight, can all be acquired 



92 LETTERS TO 

and fully enjoyed out of the Methodist Church ; 
as all these rights and privileges were fully en- 
joyed by Christians for seventeen centuries be- 
fore the M. E. Church had an existence ; and of 
course nothing of importance would be gained 
by joining your church, which can not be en- 
joyed as fully out of it. 

Do not Presbyterians, Baptists, Congrega- 
tionalists, and all other "evangelical sects," as 
you call them, enjoy all the rights and privi- 
leges which you enumerate in your "secondly?" 
You will admit it, I am sure ; and I think you 
will admit also that the Christian Church, who 
reject all party names, creeds and confessions of 
faith, of human manufacture, and who takes the 
Bible alone as her rule of faith and manners, 
and the name " Christian," as the name given 
to the disciples of Christ in the beginning — I 
say, you will admit that they too enjoy all these 
privileges and rights as fully as Methodists, ex- 
cept it be in your " powerful ministry." And 
I am sure that you will not deny that the Chris- 
tian Church has a "powerful ministry," who in 
point of talents, learning and piety will lose 
nothing in comparison with the ministry of the 
M. E. Church. 

But you further say to your people, under 
this head : " You have all the privileges found 



BISHOP MORRIS. 93 

in any other evangelical church, with class meet- 
ings and love feasts into the bargain, two choice 
means of religious improvement, at once profita- 
ble and delightful." 

Now, Dr. Morris, I admit that you have 
brought forward something new ; and if they 
are what you say, '-profitable and delightful," it 
might be well enough for every body to acquire 
the right of using them, by joining your church. 
You admit above that all the Christian privi- 
leges to be found in your church, can also be 
found in all other evangelical churches, except 
the two last named, w T hich you tell us that the 
members of your church "get into the bargain ;" 
that is, "class meeting and love feast." Let us 
then look at these two means of "religious im- 
provement," and see what they amount to. 

Class Meeting. — Mr. Inskip in his book on 
Methodism, p. 193, says of the class meeting : 
"And so soon as we become willing to dispense 
with this feature of our system, our decline and 
downfall will certainly and rapidly follow. This 
is one of the ancient landmarks. And it would 
be almost sacrilege to remove or deface it." 

From this it is evident that the class meeting 
is regarded of vital importance to the very exist- 
ence of Methodism. And yet, my dear Bishop, 
Mr. Wesley knew that such an institution as a 



94 LETTERS TO 

class meeting was never heard of in the primi- 
tive church. It is entirely destitute of Scrip- 
ture warrant. Or will you say, as Mr. Wesley 
did, when he was called on for his Scripture au- 
thority for it. He answered : " There is none 
against it." Nor does the Scripture in so many 
words condemn the use of instrumental music in 
our worshiping assemblies ; but shall we con- 
clude, therefore, that it is scriptural and right ? 
Infant sprinkling is not once named or alluded 
to in the Bible, and of course we find no Scrip- 
ture in so many words, and by name forbidding 
the practice ; and Dr. Clarke regards this as a 
strong argument, if not the very strongest in its 
favor ! Class meetings are of human device — 
not of God, but of the fathers of Methodism. It 
may be, and no doubt is, a good human expedi- 
ent, to keep Methodism alive, as Mr. Inskip as- 
sures us that it would starve and die without it. 
But the Christian church depends not upon 
class meetings, or an}^ other human device, to 
give it success. But of "class meetings" I shall 
have more to say hereafter. 

Love Feasts. — Your love feasts, like your 
class meeting policy, has no Scripture warrant, 
and is therefore, a mere human expedient. I 
believe your love feasts are generally observed at 
the close of your quarterly conferences, yearly 



BISHOP MORRIS. 95 

conferences, and other great occasions. At such 
times, I believe it is your custom to issue tickets 
to such persons as the elders and preachers think 
proper to invite. These invitations, I believe, 
extend, not only to members of your church in 
good standing and full fellowship, but also to 
well-wishers of the cause of Methodism, though 
they may not be professors of religion at all ! 
When the hour arrives, the congregation thus 
brought together, sit down together, while bread 
and water are passed round, each one taking a 
bite of the bread, and a sip of the water ! This 
is one of the two delightful means of religious 
instruction, which " every Methodist gets into 
the bargain ," as you inform us ! But Doctor, 
do not some other sects, besides the M. E. 
Church, use the "love feast" and the "class 
meeting" too? So it seems that these sects en- 
joy these " delightful means of religious instruc- 
tion," without joining your church. 

But you are perhaps ready to say that you 
have some Scripture at least, for the " love 
feast," as the apostle Jude says of certain un- 
godly teachers. " They are spots in your feasts 
of charity;" (Jude 12.) We have the testi- 
mony of the learned, that there was something 
called " feasts of charity," or "love feasts," in 
the primitive church, which were continued up to 



96 LETTERS TO 

the fourth century. But you will not contend 
that these " love feasts," or " love suppers," as 
Tertullian calls them, were any thing like your 
" love feasts." 

The great Dr. Benson, one of your principal 
commentators, says of these ancient. "love sup- 
pers." 

" They were called love feats, or suppers, be- 
cause the richer Christians brought in a variety 
of provisions to feed the poor, the fatherless, the 
widows, and strangers, and ate with them to 
show their love to them." 

Now, Doctor, if you will change the charac- 
ter of your "love feasts," to something like the 
above, and make it a real feast of love, to the 
poor, the widow and the orphan, and the stran- 
ger, then I will cease to oppose it. What say 
you? 

In giving us the third item in your " bill of 
rights," you say : 

" Thirdly, these acquired rights are secured 
to you on such a firm constitutional basis, that 
no earthly power can deprive you of them, till, 
you willfully forfeit them by disobedience to, or 
some personal violation of, the rules of the 
church." 

That is, your members acquire the right to 
stay in the M. E. Church, as long as they con- 



BISHOP MORRIS, 

form to your peculiar rules. You admit that! ti 
the "infancy of Methodism," the preacher had 
absolute power over the laity, and could dispos- 
sess them of all their privileges, at his pleasure, 
and without the form of a trial. But it was 
found not to be safe for the members, and the 
power was taken from him : and now the laymen 
are allowed a trial before their " peers." 

Very well, Doctor, that was a good step n 
the path of reformation. Go on, my dear sir, 
reforming your peculiar system, till you have got 
back to primitive ground, and a "pure speech" 
Then, indeed, all that is really peculiar to Meth- 
odism will be laid aside as useless to the Chris- 
tian, and the word of God alone will take its 
proper place as your only guide from earth to 
heaven. If we take all the human systems of re- 
ligion in Christendom, and examine them in the 
light of divine truth, we should no doubt find 
many truths taken from the Bible, in all of them, 
and a great many things peculiar to each. 
Whatever theiefore is true in any of them, is 
not peculiar to them, but divine. And whatever 
is peculiar to Methodism, Baptistism, Presbyte- 
rianism, Episcopalianism, or any humanism, is 
not of God, but of men, and therefore not essen- 
tial to salvation, and may be safely laid aside as 
useless lumber. 
7 



98 LBTfEIta T5 

Wo must necessarily pass over much that you 
have said, as the limit we have set to these let- 
ters will not admit of a more extended exami- 
nation. 



i 



BISHOP MORRIS, 99 



LETTER IX. 

THE MINISTRT. 

Three agents standing between the pastor and his 
flock — Deacons — Class leaders and class meetings 
unknown in the beginning of Methodism — Rise of 
Methodism — Mr. Wesley an unconverted man for 
near ten years after he began to preach Methodism — 
Whence came class meetings ? — Captain Foy the fa- 
ther of class meetings — It is a prudential regulation— 
A hard question — Exhorters and local preachers — 
Presiding elders — An experiment of seventy-four 
years' standing — The Bishop's cabinet — Better pcoof 
than age — The experiment has proved successful — 
Romanism has been successful — Mahomet and Joe 
Smith have both been successful with their delu- 
sions — We must have, something better — A "thu3 
saith the Lord" — The divine pattern of a church 
shown at Jerusalem. 

Thom\s A. Morris, D. D. : 

My Dear Sir — On the 38th page of your lit- 
tle book, you speak of. the ministry of your 
church on this wise : 

" Between the members and pastors there are 
other active agents for good ; class leaders, ex- 
horters and local preachers. " 

From your statement it appears that these 
three classes of agents, or ministers, stand " be- 
tween the members and their pastors/' and of 
course they are above the members. It was not 
so from the beginning. In the primitive church 
no agents were placed over the members, be- 



100 LETTERS TO 

tween them and their pastors. They had their 
deacons, but they were not placed over their 
brethren, but rather under thern, as "servants" 
of the congregation, and by virtue of their office 
they performed no pastoral work. They had 
charge of the temporal affairs of the church, and 
served tables. (Acts vi.) Those of them who 
used the office of a deacon well, " obtained a 
good degree, and great boldness in the faith/ * 
And two of them, at least, became powerful 
preachers, as Philip and Stephen. But preach- 
ing constituted no part of their business, as dea- 
cons. 

And even in the beginning of Methodism, 
Buch agents as class leaders and class meetings 
were wholly unknown. You are no doubt well 
posted in the history of your church, and of 
course you need not be told that at the first rise 
of the Methodist Society it consisted of only four 
young men, and even these were unconverted ! 
They met occasionally of evenings, to read the 
Greek classics and converse together. This 
was in Oxford, England, in 1729. Mr. Wesley's 
own words in reference to this matter are the 
following : 

"On Monday, May 1st, our little Society be* 
gan in London ; but it may be observed, that 
the first rise of Methodism, so called, was in No- 






BISHOP MORRIS. 101 

vember, 1729, when four of us met together at 
Oxford. " And Mr. Wesley further says, " The 
second rise of Methodism was at Savannah, Ga., 
in 1736, where twenty or thirty persons met at 
my house." And again he says, " The third 
rise of Methodism was in London, May 1, 1737, 
when forty or fifty of us agreed to meet together 
every Wednesday evening, in order to a free 
conversation, begun and ended with singing and 
prayer." — Wesley's Works, Vol, 7, p. 348. 

Here we have the history of the rise and pro- 
gress of your peculiar system of Methodism, 
for near ten years, embracing three distinct 
risings; yet there is no reference made to class 
leaders, or class meetings, simply because the 
thing did not then exist. And what is very re- 
markable in this matter, is the fact that Mr. 
John Wesley, the founder and father of Method- 
ism, was all this time an unconverted sinner ! 
According to his own testimony, he was only 
converted to God on the 4th day of May, 1738, 
near ten years after he commenced preaching 
Methodism. (Wesley's Works, Yol. 3, p. 74.) 

Whence, then, came class leaders and class 
meetings ? You say this is an essential part of 
your system, and is peculiar to it ; and Mr. In- 
skip says that it is so important to the life of 
Methodism, that if it should by any means be 



102 LETTERS TO 

laid aside, your "decline and fall mould cer- 
tainly and rapidly foUow." Yet we have 
seen, from the history of Methodism, that noth- 
ing of the kind existed for some ten years after 
tite first rise of Methodism in Oxford. But we 
aW not left in the dark upon this subject. One 
of your leading writers, while giving the history 
of Methodism, says upon this point : 

" In the month of February, in the year 1742, 
several 'earnest and sensible' men, as Mr. Wes- 
ley calls them, connected with the Society under 
his care at Bristol, were together consulting as 
to the best method to be adopted to secure the 
payment of a debt incurred in building a 'preach- 
ing place.' It was agreed thatthe Society be 
divided into classes of twelve, and that one of 
them should be appointed to collect of each of 
these what they might be willing to give. The 
same arrangement was made in London, about a 
month after.' \ — Ins/rip, p. 192. 

But Mr. Wesley himself is a little more defi- 
nite in his history of this matter. Speaking of 
this Bristol conference of "earnest and sensible 
men," he says: 

"I asked, how shall we pay the debt upon 
the preaching house? Captain Foy stood up 
and said, ' Let every one give a penny a week, 
and it will easily be done/ ' But many of them. 



BISHOP MORRIS. 103 

said one, \ have not a penny to give.* * True/ 
said the Captain, * then put ten or twelve of 
them to me. Let each of them give what they 
can weekly, and I will supply what is wanting/ 
Many others made the same offer." So Mr. 
Wesley divided the Society among them, asf 
signing a class of about twelve persons to each 
of these, who were termed "leaders." (Wes- 
ley's Works, Vol. 7, p. 316.) 

Here, then, we have found the origin of 
class meetings and class leaders, in the goodly 
town of Bristol, in "merry old England," in the 
year of grace 1742, just thirteen years after the 
"first rise of Methodism." This institution 
originated in the prolific brain of Captain Foy, 
who seems to have been a good financier, and as 
a stroke of financial policy he certainly made a 
" capital hit." 

But let it be observed, that the design of tho 
institution at first was not to place " class lead- 
ers" over the members to perform pastoral du- 
ties, between the pastor and his flock, which you 
inform us is the position now occupied by such 
functionaries in your church ; but it was simply 
an arrangement suggested and set on foot by 
the good Captain Foy, for the purpose of raising 
the money necessary to pay the debt on the 
meeting house, and of course temporary in its 
character and design. 



104 LETTERS TO 

Such, my dear Doctor, is a brief, but true 
history of the rise of class meetings and class 
leaders, by which you and all our readers will 
see that it is not from heaven, but of men. 
Class leaders are an order of officials wholly un- 
known in the primitive church, and of course 
entirely unnecessary to the growth and prosper- 
ity of the Christian church, and to the salvation 
of man. But Mr. Inskip says of this peculiar 
institution : 

" Class meetings are peculiar to Methodism. 
Other churches have occasional inquiry, confer- 
ence, or experience meetings ; but the class 
meetings are an essential part of the system. 
All persons uniting with us, are required to at- 
tend class, unless prevented by sickness or other 
circumstances not under their control. It is 
not claimed that this institution is of divine ori- 
gin. Like many other peculiarities of our sys- 
tem, it is a prudential regulation.' ' .... 
"And so soon as we become willing to dispense 
with this feature of our system, our decline and 
downfall will certainly and rapidly follow." — In- 
skip's Methodism, pp. 192-3. 

Now, my dear Bishop, what respect can we 
entertain for a religious system which depends 
for its very existence upon a mere humanism — 
" a prudential regulation," for which no "divine 



BISHOP MORRIS. 105 

authority" is claimed, even by its most ardent 
advocates and supporters ? Can such a system 
be of God ? You need not attempt to answer 
this question, if you think it is too hard for you, 
and your silence will be understood by all. In- 
deed, I do not expect you to answer it. 

But let no one misunderstand me, while I 
thus speak of the " peculiarities of Methodism." 
It is the system, and not those who honestly 
embrace it, that I am opposing. I know that 
the system is wrong, and therefore I oppose it 
with earnestness, and use great plainness of 
speech ; though I have great respect for you, 
Doctor, and all other good Methodists. I have 
no doubt that many Methodists are sincere and 
pious ; and it is because I love you and them, 
that I speak thus plainly of your system. And 
may I not hope that you will not consider me 
" your enemy because I tell you the truth ?" 

As to your other two agents, "exhorters and 
local preachers," so far as they are peculiar to 
Methodism, and come between the pastor and 
his flock, and are above the members, the same 
remarks and objections that we have already 
made concerning class meetings and class lead- 
ers will apply in all their force. 

It is true there were exhorters in the primi- 
tive church, but they were not an J 4 order of 



106 LETTERS TO 

men," above the church. Every member was 
authorized to exhort his brethren. " Exhorting 
one another, and so much the more as you see 
the day approaching." But they were not offi- 
cers, licensed by the preacher in charge, or the 
quarterly conference ; nor were they placed 
above their brethren, " between the members 
and the pastor." 

The early Christians appear to have been 
nearly all preachers, not local, but itinerant 
preachers. We are told, Acts viii. 1-4, that 
when Stephen was put to death, "there was a 
great persecution against the church which was 
at Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad 
throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, 
except the Apostles." .... "Therefore 
they who were scattered abroad, went every 
where preaching the word." 

Thus we see that they were all scattered 
Abroad ; and that all who were thus dispersed, 
H went every where preaching the word." The 
Apostles remained in Jerusalem, and were, at 
least for the time being, the only " local preach- 
ers" among them. And their commission was 
to " every creature." Every one was required 
to do all he could for the advancement of the 
cause of Christ. Jesus says, " Occupy till I 
come." Whether the Christian had one, two, 



BISHOP MORRIS. 10T 

or five talents, he was required to improve them 
according to his ability. But such an order of 
men as " local preachers," being placed above 
their brethren and between the members and 
their pastors, was never thought of among the 
primitive disciples. 

PRESIDING ELDERS. 

On page 5th you say of the office of "presid- 
ing elder :" 

M The office first appears on the minutes of 
1785, where an elder's name stands at the head 
of each district, but without the prefix 'presid- 
ing* till 1789, just seventy years ago, since 
which period the minutes in this respect have 
been uniform. A usage of seventy-four years' 
standing is entitled to respectful consideration. 
It has, however, higher claims than age confers, 
on the score of utility. The experiment has 
proved itself successful." 

Well, Bishop, that will do. The office of pre* 
siding elder, according to your own showing, is 
an experiment of only seventy-four years' stand- 
ing. Such an officer was not only unknown in 
the Methodist Church during the first half cen- 
tury of its existence, but had no existence in the 
Christian church for seventeen centuries, and is 
never referred to in the New Testament ! Some 
seventy -five years ago your fathers u felt the 



108 LETTERS TO 

need" of something to come in between the itin- 
erancy and the bishops, for the purpose of form- 
ing the "Bishop's cabinet.' ' And not know- 
ing exactly what they did want, they created the 
office of "Elder" to stand at the head of each 
district, but finding by experiment that this was 
not exactly what they needed, they placed the 
prefix "presiding" to the "elder," four years 
afterwards, and the experiment then worked 
well, and it has been retained as part of the sys- 
tem. 

But you say you have better evidence in its 
favor than age (seventy-four years). Well, 
Doctor, let us have it ; we want something bet- 
ter than that, before we are prepared to admit its 
divine authority. Christianity is more than 
eighteen hundred years old, and this part of your 
peculiar system can only be traced back some 
seventy-five years, and can consequently claim 
nothing on the score of antiquity. But let us 
have your best and strongest proof. 

You say, " The experiment has proved itself 
successful." And is this the best you can do, 
Doctor, for your "presiding elder?" I sup- 
pose it is, and will therefore examine it for a mo- 
ment. Did it never occur to you, my dear 
Bishop, that this argument would prove too 
much for your purpose ? Has not the Romish 



BISHOP MORRIS, 109 

Church been very successful in the use of the 
mass, the confessional, penance, and purgatory ? 
You know that she has been very successful in 
the use of these unscriptural and miserable dog- 
mas. Abolish any or all of these, and her "de- 
cline and downfall would certainly and rapidly 
follow." But does the argument of success 
prove Romanism to be from God ? Certainly 
not. 

Mohammed was very successful in promul- 
gating the Koran. But did his success prove 
his system right, and his religion acceptable to 
God ? What say you ? 

Joe Smith, the modern pretender, was very 
successful in the promulgation of the "Book of 
Mormon." You know that unprecedented suc- 
cess attended the efforts of Smith and his delu- 
ded followers in establishing their miserable de- 
lusion ; but so far from receiving thi^success 
as evidence of the divinity of Mormonism, you 
and I regard the system and the practice under 
it as an abomination in the sight of God, and 
that their success only proves the gullibility of 
the people. Is this not so, Doctor ? 

No indeed — we Protestants want better evi- 
dence for any doctrine, practice, or office in the 
church, than mere success, or utility. We 
must have a "thus saith the Lord." And 



110 LETTERS TO 

therefore any office, doctrine, or practice, that 
does not date back more than seventy-five years 
we reject as having no authority that we aie 
bound to respect ; and wanting in all the essen- 
tial elements of a Christian institution. 

You remember that God said to Moses, when 
he was about to make the tabernacle, " See that 
thou make all things according to the pattern 
shown thee in the mount.' ' This tabernacle 
was a type of the Christian temple, or church 
of Christ. God has shown us the pattern of the 
"church of the living God." This divine pat- 
tern was the church constituted at Jerusalem, 
on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit 
came down, according to the promise of Jesus, 
and "guided them into all truth." 

To this model we must always refer ; and if 
we should find that in our honest efforts to build 
up the church of Christ, and " spread scriptural 
holiness over these lands," we have made a mis- 
take, and have entirely failed to " make all things 
according to the divine model or pattern" shown 
us at Jerusalem, and that instead of " spreading 
scriptural holiness over these lands," we have 
been building up a sect of very recent date, 
and spreading Methodism, Presbyterianism, or 
Campbellism " over these lands ;" I say, if we 
find that we have been thus engaged, no matter 



BISHOP MORRIS. Ill 

how honestly, we ought at once to acknowledge 
our errors, reform and set ourselves right. 

For example, if we should find from an exam- 
ination of the " divine pattern," as given to us in 
the New Testament, that in the Jerusalem 
church, and those organized under the eye of 
the Apostles, there were no " class meetings," 
"class leaders," u local preachers and exhort- 
ers," such as we find in the M. E. Church, 
placed over the congregation and between the 
members and the pastor, no "presiding elders" 
over the traveling preachers and between them 
and the bishops, to form the " Bishop's cabinet," 
we should then be satisfied at once that we have 
not " made all things" according to the " pattern 
shown us" in the mount of God ; and we should 
at once give these things all up, and abandon 
them as an excrescence upon the tree of life. 

Or if we should find in our examination of the 
"pattern," that none were received into the 
primitive church without faith in Christ, as the 
Son of God, repentance, confession of Jesus 
Christ, before men, as the Savior of sinners, and 
immersion in the name of Jesus Christ, into the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Spirit ; and that this immersion was for, 
or in order to, or into the " remission of sins," 
we could then apply the divine pattern to our 



112 LETTERS TO 

work, and see whether we have been working 
according to it. 

And if we find that we have been working 
and " experimenting" upon rules and regula- 
tions of our own make, for a hundred years, 
under which we have taken into our church un- 
converted persons and infants without faith ; and 
that we have changed immersion into the un- 
meaning rite of sprinkling or pouring, then 
we may know with absolute certainty that we 
are wrong, however sincere we may have been 
in our efforts. * 

And on the other hand, if in our examination 
of the divine pattern, we find that we have the 
same faith, the same divine regulations for re- 
ceiving members into the church, and of with- 
drawing fellowship from unruly members ; that 
we have the same immersion, and submit to it 
with the same design ; that we wear the same 
name, speak the same things, and mind the 
same things ; then we may know certainly that 
we are right, and can not be wrong. 



BISHOP MORRIS. 113 



LETTER X. 

THE BISHOPS. 

New Testament bishops compared with Methodist bish- 
ops — Epitkopoi means '* overseers" — A plurality of 
overseers in every congregation — Methodist bishops 
have no local diocese — Primitive overseers or bishops 
exercised no episcopal functions out of the particular 
congregation in which they had their membership — 
Lord King on Primitive church, etc. — Methodist 
bishops claim and exercise authority never dreamed 
©f in the primitive church — Primitive bishops were 
commanded to "feed the flock" — Six bishops can 
not, if they would, feed the Methodist flock; as it is 
too large — When did the primitive bishops hold a 
general conference to make prudential rules? — Meth- 
odist churches have no voice in choosing their pas- 
tors — There were no such bishops, as the six, in the 
early days of Methodism — John Wesley no bishop- 
Mr. Wesley's letter to Asbury. 

Thomas A. Morris, 1). D. : 

My Dear Sir — I now come t6 the Bishops 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Speaking 
of your bishops as the " appointing power," 
you say, on page 54th of your little book : 

"This pertains to the general superintend- 
ency. We have now six bishops, neither of 
which claims any local diocese. They are 
jointly responsible for the oversight of the whole 
connection ; they divide it into six parts, each 
taking his route for one year, and then chang- 
ing, that each in Jiis turn presides in all the con* 
8 



114 LETTERS TO 

ferences. One of our official duties is to fix the 
appointments of the preachers, under certain 
rules of limitation well understood among us. 
In our peculiar organization many individual 
rights are relinquished for the general good. 
Ministers relinquish any real or supposed rights 
of preference for places, with the understanding 
that the members are not to choose their pasters, 
but to receive whomsoever are sent. This is as 
fair for one party as the other. Of course the 
execution of such a system requires the agency 
of a third party, the bishops.' ' 

Well, Bishop, thou hast well said (hat the 
system of Methodism is peculiar; and though 
you do not claim divine authority for it, 1 am 
sure you will not complain if I compare Method- 
ist bishops with the bishops or overseers of the 
primitive church. 

In the days of the Apostles there were epis- 
Jcopoi ordained in every congregation, and King 
James 1 translators have given us in the common 
version "bishops," whereas the Greek word 
episkopoi simply means "overseers," and 
should be so rendered, upon the authority of 
the learned world. But such a translation 
would spoil your peculiar system as regards the 
six bishops. 

Let us* take the Mowing example. Paul 






BISHOP MORRIS. 



115 



sent to Ephesus, from Miletus, and called the 
elders of the church (presbuterous) and deliv- 
ered to them his final charge, assuring them 
that they should see his face no more ; and he 
said to them, " Take heed, therefore, unto your- 
selves, and to all the flock over the which the 
Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (episko- 
pous), to feed the church of God, which he hath 
purchased with his own blood, " Acts xx. 23. 

Now, we are not informed how many over- 
seers there were in the church at Ephesus, but 
we are told at the 17th verse, that they were all 
"presbyters" (presbuterous), and therefore the 
"flock of God" which they were charged to 
feed and oversee was simply the congregation 
located in the city of Ephesus. The Greek 
word which our translators have rendered 
"overseers," in the above text, and very prop- 
erly so, is episkopous, the same which they gen- 
erally translate by the term "bishops." 

While, then, your bishops have no "local 
diocese," but have under their charge separately 
and jointly the thousands of your societies ; the 
primitive overseers or bishops were local, and 
exercised their episcopal functions, if they had 
any, only in the individual congregations, of 
which they were members respectively, and to 
whom they were amenable for their conduct as 
Christian men. 



116 LETTERS TO 

Take another example in proof of our posi- 
tion. " Paul and Timotheus, the servants of 
Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus 
which are at Philippi, with the bishops and dea- 
cons ;" Phil. i. 1. 

Now you know, Doctor, that the Greek word 
here rendered " bishops/' is epislcopoi, in the 
plural, and should be rendered, as in the other 
example, "Overseers." This proves that there 
were in the church at Philippi two or more over- 
seers, or bishops, and consequently our position 
is correct. 

Lord King, in his book on the " primitive 
church," after attempting to prove by the early 
Christian fathers that there was but one bishop, 
ruling at the same time in each congregation, he 
proceeds in chapter second to prove that no 
bishop in the primitive church had more than 
one congregation under his oversight. He says : 

" Having in the former chapter shown that 
there was but one bishop to a church, we shall 
in this, evidence that there was but one church 
to a bishop, which will appear from this single 
consideration, viz : that the ancient dioceses are 
never said to contain churches, in the plural, 
but only a church, in the singular." * * * 
"This was a common name whereby a bishop's 
care was denominated, the bishpp himself being 



BISHOP MORRIS* 117 

usually called the bishop of this, or that church, 
as Tertullian saith, that Pollycarp was ordained 
bishop of the church of Smyrna. As for the 
word "diocese," by which the bishop's flock is 
now usually expressed, I do not remember that 
ever I found it so used in this sense by any of 
the ancients." 

His lordship next proceeds to give his rea- 
sons for preferring the word parish to diocese, 
and says he finds it so used several hundred 
times in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History ; and 
he continues : 

"It is usual there to read of the bishops of 
the parish of Alexandria, of the parish of Athens, 
of the parish of Carthage, and so of the bish- 
ops of the parishes of several other churches ; 
by the term denoting the very same that we 
now call a parish, viz. : a competent number of 
Christians dwelling near together, having one 
bishop, pastor or minister set over them, with 
whom they all met at one time to worship and 
serve God. * * * So that a parish is 
the same as a particular church, or a single con- 
gregation." Page 31. 

Again, on page 33, his lordship says : "The 
bishop had but one altar or communion table in 
his whole diocese, at which his whole flock re- 
ceived the sacrament from him* At this altar 



118 LETTERS TO 

the bishop administered the sacrament to his 
whole flock at one time. * * * And thus 
it was in Justin Martyr's days ; the bishop's 
whole diocese met together on Sunday, when 
the bishop gave them the eucharist ; and if any 
were absent, he sent it to them by the deacons." 

Much more of the same kind of testimony 
might be given from this learned author, who 
was a zealous Episcopalian, and of course can 
not be accused of any leaning to our view of the 
subject ; but we have quoted enough to show 
that Lord King and all the early fathers were 
opposed to Episcopacy, as developed in your 
peculiar system of Methodism. 

I will now pay my respects to the bishops 
of the M. E. Church, in all kindness and hu- 
mility, and see how they will compare with the 
bishops or overseers of the primitive church. 
You tell us in your little book, as already quoted, 
that you "have now six bishops, neither of whom 
claims any local diocese. They are jointly re- 
sponsible for the oversight of the whole con- 
nection/ f etc. 

From this it is evident that you, Bishop 
Morris, and your five Episcopal associates, claim 
and exercise authority and power never dreamed 
of by the bishops or overseers of the primitive 
church. They only exercised their office in a 



BISHOP MORRIS. 119 

single congregation in which they respectively 
had their membership, while you exercise 
Episcopal authority and power, from Maine to 
Texas, and from New York to the Pacific coast, 
every where where your peculiar societies exist ! 
This arrangement gives nearly six States to the 
bishop, with a good slice of territory. This 
puts it entirely out of your power to obey the 
command of God to the primitive bishops, to 
"feed the flock of God." Your field is too large 
for such a work, even if you were disposed to 
do it. 

5. But if I understand you, my dear bishop, 
it is no part of your business to "feed the flock." 
Your time is all occupied with other matters, 
such as "presiding in all the Annual Confer- 
ences/' "fixing the appointments of all the 
preachers," and "presiding in the General 
Conferences," where you make all your "pruden- 
tial rules and regulations," modifying ..such 
as are found to need changing, and abolishing 
altogether such as are found by actual experi- 
ment not to "work well" In these General 
Conferences you have your Discipline to 
amend, by modifying some of its parts, leaving 
out a chapter, and inserting one in its place, 
where your experience and observation *may 
decide such change necessary. 



120 



LETTEItS TO 



These duties are arduous, but it being a part 
of your peculiar system, you must devote your- 
selves to them. Indeed, according to your own 
showing, your peculiar system could not exist 
one hour without this element. And yet such 
matters constituted no part of the work of the 
Sew Testament bishops. Where and when did 
bishop Paul, or bishop Peter, John or James 
preside in an annual conference ? Or a Gene- 
ral Conference, to make "prudential rules and 
regulations ,, for the church of Christ, or to 
modify the law of the Lord, to strike out a chap- 
ter of the New Testament, and insert one in its 
place? When and where did any one of the 
bishops of the primitive church meet in an 
annual Conference "to fix the appointments of 
the preachers/' You are compelled to answer, 
"Nowhere ! never !" 

We are then forced to the conclusion that you 
are nfct such bishops as the Holy Spirit con- 
stituted "overseers" in the primitive church. 
But do you not, as bishops, in "fixing the ap- 
pointment of your preachers/' exercise a sort of 
lordship over them, that is wholly inconsistent 
with Christian liberty ? Your preachers have 
no voice in their appointments. To one, you say, 
"Go, and he goeth, to another, come, and he 
cometh," and to your servants, generally, "Do 
this thing, and they do it/' 






BISHOP MORRIS. 121 

In like manner the societies have no voice 
in this matter. You say to them, "Receive this 
preacher,' ' and they are compelled to accept 
him as their pastor, no matter how much they 
may feel opposed to him. Thus all individual 
rights, both in preachers and people, are given 
up ; and your Episcopal will becomes the abso- 
lute law in the case, to which all must bow with 
the most implicit obedience, "not answering 
again/' 

But Mr. John Wesley, whom you all ac- 
knowledge as the "father of Methodism," was 
not only not a bishop himself, but he was en- 
tirely opposed to the whole thing, as his writings 
abundantly show. Mr. Inskip says : 

"In ordaining or appointing Dr. Coke and 
Mr. Asbury to be Superintendents to govern 
the societies in America, Mr. Wesley, justice 
compels us to say, had no sympathy with the 
high prerogatives sometimes claimed for the 
episcopacy. lie evidently understood the office 
to be one of supervision or oversight. In other 
words, the superintendency to which he promo- 
ted these men, was merely an office and not a 
ministerial order in the church, * * * He 
despised every thing like high-sounding names 
and titles. Hence in the credentials which he 
furnished Dr. Coke, he and Mr. Asbury were 



122 LETTERS TO 

proclaimed joint superintendents. He used the 
term "Superintendents/ ' because it conveyed 
an idea of the office to which these men were 
elevated ; and because of his aversion to the 
title of bishop. 79 (Inskip, pp. 47, 48.) 

But to give the reader a clear conception of 
Mr. Wesley's views of the Episcopal dignity, we 
shall here insert an extract of Mr. Wesley's let- 
ter to Mr. Asbury upon the subject. From 
the date of this letter, we see that Methodism 
had been in existance more than half a century 
without a bishop, unless Dr. Coke and F. As- 
bury may be so considered. But here is the 
letter of Mr. Wesley. (See Wesley's Works, 
Vol.7, p. 189.) 

"London, September 20, 1788. 

"There is, indeed, a wide difference between 
the relation wherein you stand to the Ameri- 
cans, and the relation wherein I stand to all 
the Methodists. You are the elder brother of 
the American Methodists. I am, under God, 
the father of the whole family. Therefore, I 
naturally care for you all in a manner no other 
person can do. Therefore I, in a measure, pro- 
vide for you all ; for the supplies which Dr. 
Coke provides for you, he could not provide 
were it not for me — were it not that I not only 
permit him to collect, but also support him in 
so doing. 



BISHOP MORRIS. 123 

" But in one point, my dear brother, I am a 
little afraid the Doctor and you differ from me. 
I study to be little, you study to be great; I 
creep, you strut along. I found a school, you a 
college. Nay, and call it after your own names ! 
0, beware ! Do not seek to be something ! Let 
me be nothing, and Christ all in all. 

" One instance of this, your Greatness, has 
given me great concern. How can you, how 
dare you suffer yourself to be called a Bishop ! 
I shudder, I start at the very thought. Men 
may call me a knave, or a fool, a rascal, a 
scoundrel, and I am content ; but they shall 
never, by my consent, call me a Bishop ! For 
my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a 
full end to this ! Let the Presbyterians do what 
they please, but let the Methodists know their 
calling better. 

" Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all 
that is in my heart ; and let this, when I am no 
more seen, bear witness how sincerely I am your 
affectionate friend and brother, 

John Wesley." 

Thus we have the unequivocal testimony of 
Mr. Wesley against your Episcopacy ! In read- 
ing over the strong language of Mr. Wesley, we 
might almost come to the conclusion that he 
was endowed w r ith the spirit of prophecy. Look- 



124 LETTERS TO 

ing down into the future, he saw the extrava- 
gant claims and pretensions of his two superin- 
tenden's, Dr. Coke and F. Asbury, and their 
successors in the bishop's office ! When, in- 
stead of confining their official acts to a single 
congregation, as did the primitive overseers, they 
would usurp all authority in the organization, 
and claim authority to change times and laws ! 
And scorning the old fashioned idea of a parish 
or diocese composed of a single congregation, 
they would put forth claims more extravagant 
than the bishops of the Church of England them- 
selves. They are content with a local diocese, 
as London, Liverpool, Manchester, York, Lan- 
caster, Canterbury, Oxford, etc. But you have 
no "local diocese." The whole connection— 
the world is your diocese. He clearly saw the 
evil that would follow such usurpation, and 
hence his earnest protest, and solemn warning ! 

Yet, despite the warning voice of Mr. Wesley, 
and the clear testimony of Scripture against you, 
you have inaugurated this fearful element in 
your ecclesiastical system ! What do you think, 
Doctor, the "father of the whole family, under 
God," would say to you, if he were now living ? 
Would he not address you as he did Mr. Asbu- 
ry — "I shudder, I start at the very thought?" 

I hope, Doctor, you will not become excited, 



BISHOP MORRIS. 125 

and offended with me, for dealing thus plainly 
with you, and your ecclesiastical polity. Though 
] have just learned that one of your brethren, 
after reading some of these letters, as published 
in the Christian Record, became so much ex- 
cited, that in spite of the entreaties of friends, he 
threw the Record into the flames, and thus con- 
sumed one copy of an argument which he could 
not answer ! 

May the Lord lay not this sin to his charge, 
but " grant him repentance to the acknowledg- 
ment of the truth ;" that he may be saved in the 
day of the Lord Jesus. 



126 LETTERS TO 



LETTER XI. 

Paul's experience— Methodist bishops do not have 
Paul's experience — Paul had the signs of an Apos- 
tle—Methodist bishops have not— Can not speak 
with tongues; — Paul's commission — He did not con- 
fer with flesh and blood — Methodist bishops do — 
Paul did not "fix the appointments of the preach- 
ers" — Paul defended the gospel, and disputed with 
its enemies — Methodist bishops never debate — Meth- 
odist bishops control the spiritual and temporal in- 
terests of the church — General Conference — Christ 
and his Apostles have made laws for his church — The 
two checks on the ministry. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D. : 

My Dear Sir — On the 63d page of your little 
book, I read the following very remarkable 
statement. You say : 

" A Methodist bishop has a little of Paul's 
experience : • Besides those things that are with- 
out, that which cometh upon me daily, the care 
of all the churches.' Our relation is precisely 
the same to East Maine Conference and to Cin- 
cinnati Conference, to Minnesota Conference and 
to Baltimore Conference, and so of all the rest. 
It is our duty to care for the entire connection 
of preachers and members, and, as far as practi- 
cable, have them all provided for." 

I acknowledge, Doctor, that I am a little 
amused to hear a Methodist bishop claiming to 
have the experience of an Apostle. This is 



BISHOP MORRISU 127 

equivalent to saying that Methodist bishops are 
Apostles ! — as no man can have the experience 
of an Apostle who is not an Apostle. A lawyer 
has a lawyer's experience, and no other man has 
such experience. A Christian has a Christian's 
experience, but a sinner has no such experience. 

But if you claim to be Apostles, you should 
be ready to demonstrate the claim, by "divers 
miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit." Paul 
says, " The signs of an Apostle were with me." 
That is, mighty signs and wonders were done 
by him, wherever he went preaching the " un- 
searchable riches of Christ." Are the "signs 
of an Apostle" with you, Doctor, or any of your 
Episcopal associates ? Can you speak with 
tongues that you have not learned ? Can you 
" handle serpents" with safety ? Can you 
drink deadly poison without injury ? Can you 
cast out demons ? Can you heal the sick ? Or 
can you raise the dead ? If not — and I know 
you do not claim to do any of these things — 
then how dare you claim to have the experience 
of an Apostle ! 

But Jet us look for a moment at Paul's expe- 
rience. He was a chosen vessel to " bear the 
name of the Lord to the Genliles, the kings of 
the earth, and the children of Israel." He was 
called and commissioned by the Lord himself. 



128 LETTERS TO 

Can a Methodist bishop say as much ? Paul's 
religious experience commenced with his con- 
version in the city of Damascus. He was a 
penitent believer, and the disciple Ananias came 
in unto him, and after restoring him to sight, he 
said to him, " And now why tarriest thou ? 
Arise and be immersed (baptized), and wash 
away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 
And Luke says, " He arose forthwith and was 
baptized/ ' And straightway, without confer- 
ring with flesh and blood, he commenced preach- 
ing the gospel of Christ. 

Has any Methodist bishop had such an expe- 
rience as this ? I presume not. In the first 
place, none of them, I suppose, w r ere " baptized 
to wash away their sins ; M and especially they 
have not been " buried with him by baptism," 
as Paul assures us that he was, as well as the 
Roman brethren. (Rom. vi. 3-6.) And you 
did not go to the work without " conferring 
with flesh and blood," as he. did. You first 
conferred with flesh and blood in the quarterly 
conference, and obtained license to preach ; and 
finally you had to confer with flesh and blood 
in the General Conference, and by the General 
Conference you were invested with the episco- 
pal office. There is, therefore, no point of re- 
semblance between your conversion and call 



BISHOP MORRIS. 129 

the ministry and that of Paul. But Paul bore 
a divine commission. It runs thus : 

" But arise, stand upon thy feet, for I have 
appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make 
thee a minister and a witness, both of these 
things which thou hast seen and of those things 
in the which I will appear unto thee ; delivering 
thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto 
whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and 
to turn them from darkness to light and from 
the power of Satan unto God, that they may re- 
ceive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance 
among them who are sanctified by faith that is 
in me." (Acts xxvi 16-18.) 

From the foregoing, we see that Paul bore a 
commission from God, such as no Methodist 
bishop ever received. And in carrying out the 
great work entrusted to him in his commission, 
he endured all sorts of hardships and persecu- 
tions from without, and besides all this, " the 
care of all the churches came upon him daily." 
In w~hat did this care consist ? Was it in at- 
tending and presiding in all the " annual con- 
ferences?" No; there were no such gather- 
ings as " annual conferences" in Paul's day, 
and therefore he never attended an annual con- 
ference, or presided in one, in his life. 

Did the "care of all the churches/' which 
9 



130 LETTERS TO 

Paul says "came upon him daily," consist in 
the labor of " fixing the appointments of the 
preachers ?" 

Nothing of the kind. He never performed 
any such work. The nearest approach to it was 
in his course with his boys, Timothy and Titus. 
Tkrough his preaching they had both been con- 
verted, and under his instruction they had com- 
menced preaching. He did not authoritatively 
"fix Timothy" at Ephesus, without consulting 
his will in the matter. On this point Paul says 
to Timothy, "As I besought thee to abide still 
at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia." He 
did not, therefore, "fix his appointment," as 
Methodist bishops do, but "besought him to 
abide there" for a time. (1 Tim. i. 3.) 

To Titus he says, " For this cause left I thee 
in Crete," etc. He did not fix him in the island 
of Crete against his will, but simply " left him" 
there, doubtless with his own consent. " To fix 
the appointments of the preachers" was, there- 
fore, no part of the "care of the churches that 
came on him daily." So far, then, as the fixing 
of the appointments of the preachers is con- 
cerned, your experience is very different from 
that of Paul. According to your own state- 
ment, the " care of all the Methodist churches" 
that comes daily upon you and your five episco- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 131 

pal associates is simply "fixing the appoint- 
ments of all the preachers," and in this way- 
providing for the wants of all your societies — 
a sort of care that never came upon Paul, or any 
of the Apostles or primitive overseers. 

Paul was "set for the defense of the gospel." 
The church was every where assailed by her 
enemies, and all eyes were turned to the great 
Apostle to the Gentiles to defend them. He did 
not decline the contest, but met the opposers of 
truth every where, whether they were infidel 
Jews, Judaizing teachers of Christianity, or Pa- 
gan philosophers. 

Instead of having any part of Paul's experi- 
ence in such matters, Methodist bishops never 
engage in controversy, so far as I am informed. 
They leave all the debating with those whom 
they regard as in error, to the " inferior clergy." 
So did not Paul. He "disputed two whole 
years in the school of one Tyrannus." That 
was a very long debate, but it was very profita- 
ble to the cause of Christ, as by that means all 
the people in a large district of country had the 
opportunity of hearing the gospel. Have you 
ever had any such experience as this, Doctor ? 
I presume you have not. 

I take the following item from your Discipline, 
chapter 4tb, section 1st, "en. the election and 



132 LETTERS TO 

consecration of bishops, and their duties.' ' In 
answer to the question, " What are the duties 
of a bishop ?" you answer, " To oversee the 
spiritual and temporal business of our church/' 

From this statement it appears that you have 
the vast temporal and spiritual interests of your 
widespread connection entirely under your con- 
trol and supervision. You tell us that your 
church property is worth twenty millions of 
dollars. Then you and your five associates 
have the management and control of this large 
property. In addition to this, you have to pro- 
vide spiritual food for a million of Methodists, 
scattered over these lands. This you do by 
" fixing the appointments of all your preachers," 
so that^U your societies, the poor and the rich, 
may enjoy the ministrations of your preachers. 

These are cares to which the apostle Paul 
w 7 as a stranger. And pray, Doctor, what other 
interests or business have your people ? All 
their spiritual and temporal interests are en- 
trusted to your hands. Then your people are 
relieved from all responsibility. The church, 
as such, has no spiritual or temporal interests or 
business to look after or oversee. You bishops 
have taken charge of all that matter for them. 
If your societies do not prosper both spiritually 
and temporally, you are to blame and must an- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 133 

swer for tlie failure, and not your people. And 
pray, Doctor, what more does the Bishop of 
Rome claim than to control the temporal and 
spiritual interests and business of his church ? 

In view of these lofty pretensions of the bish- 
ops of your church, I do not wonder that a man 
of Mr. Wesley's modesty and Christian humility 
should shrink from such fearful responsibilities, 
and shudder at the mere thought of being a 
bishop. But I must dismiss the bishops. 

GENERAL CONFERENCE. 

On the 64th page of your book you take up 
the "General Conference/' and say:*" Thus 
far we have discoursed chiefly on the executive 
affairs of our church, but now turn our atten- 
tion for a few minutes only to her rule-making 
department. The General Conference is com- 
posed of delegates from all the annual confer- 
ences, who collectively represent and act for the 
entire connection of ministers and members." 

In this law-making department none but 
preachers are admitted. No layman, however 
intelligent and well qualified he may be to repre- 
sent his fellow members and legislate for them, 
is permitted to be a delegate to the General Con- 
ference. Is this consistent with Christian lib- 
erty ? But what are the duties of the General 
Conference ? You say, on 65th page : 



134 LETTERS TO 

"Besides revising the Discipline, they elect 
bishops, book agents, editors, corresponding 
secretaries for tne missionary Sabbath school, 
and tract societies, and regulate the publishing 
interests of the whole church." 

I wish only to notice two points in the above, 
that is, the revision of the Discipline and the 
regulating of the publishing interests of the 
whole church. In reference to the first, Mr. 
Inskip says, on page 65th : "At various periods 
as it was found expedient or necessary, these 
'rules and regulations were abolished, changed, 
or improved ; until at length the form now in 
use was completed." Again, on page 66th, 
Mr. Inskip says : " The General Conference, for 
many years past, at each session have appointed 
a committee known as the committee on revisal. 
It is the business of this committee to consider 
such modifications or improvements of our econ- 
omy as may be desired by the people, or are 
deemed just and prudent. In this manner, it 
will be seen our system of government has 
gradually assumed its present form," etc. And 
again he says : " To this constant and well di- 
rected course of innovation and improvement we 
are indebted for the adaptation or suitableness 
of our system," etc. I read the following on 
the 69th page of your little book. You say : 



BISHOP MORRIS. 135 

u The leading men of the church understand 
her constitution, and will not override it ; they 
know her true interests, and will endeavor to 
promote them by revision of rules and other- 
wise. The Discipline is, upon the whole, much 
improved recently, and may be in some few par- 
ticulars made still better." 

Do you ask me what these quotations prove 
I answer, they prove to a demonstration that 
the economy of Methodism is not of divine au- 
thority, but a mere human contrivance, that 
may be changed, modified, or abolished alto- 
gether, by the law-making department of your 
church. The economy of Methodism is not 
now what it has been, and it is not now what it 
may be a quarter of a century from the present 
time. ]No Methodist has a guaranty that the 
bishops and clergy in some future General Con- 
ference will not abolish the whole system, and 
substitute something else in its place. Indeed, 
the work has already commenced ; as in the last 
General Conference one entire chapter was 
stricken out of the Discipline, and a new one 
written and substituted in its place. 

In the church of God, the rule or law-making 
department is the Lord Jesus Christ and hi3 in- 
spired Apostles. And as they have furnished 
the church with a perfect code of laws and reg- 



136 LETTERS TO 

illations— " every thing that pertains to life and 
godliness" — "a perfect law of liberty," no 
change, modification, or improvement is admis- 
sible. That which is perfect can not be im- 
proved. Human rules are imperfect, and may 
be improved, but the divine, being perfect, never 
can. 

The second item, is the regulation of the 
" publishing interests of the whole church." 
On this item, I wish only to say a few words. 
How does the General Conference " regulate the 
publishing business of the whole church ?" In 
the sixth chapter of your Discipline, we have 
the explanation. The General Conference elect 
a "book committee,". who are the Censors of 
your denominational press. These censors of 
the press, have power to suspend any editor or 
agent, in the interval of Conference ! Any edi- 
tor or agent, who may have independence enough 
to think and act for himself, is liable to suspen- 
sion, by this censorship, any day. This book 
committee at New York, if I understand the 
system, have to pass upon all books and publi- 
cations, before they can be issued by the book 
concern. Thus centralizing all the powers of 
the denominational press, and effectually dis- 
couraging all individual enterprise ! 

On page 70th you commenced answering 



BISHOP MORRIS. 137 

objections to your system. But allow me to 
say, that I think you have raised some objec- 
tions, that you have failed to answer, or remove. 
For example : Your first objection is, " The 
ministers have every thing their own way, and 
the members have no check upon them." This 
objection you attempt to answer by naming 
two checks which the membership have upon 
the preachers. 

First, they have to furnish the material of 
which you make preachers. You say, " Our 
dependence is on them (the members) for men 
to keep up the ministerial force to carry on the 
work." What a check this is, upon the minis- 
try ! If the members furnish no more men, no 
more preachers can be made for the want of 
men! ! 

It is like this : A government is accused of 
tyranny, and usurpation, and the people have no 
check upon the rulers, and therefore have to 
submit. But the king or governor answers this 
objection by saying, " There need be no trou- 
ble at all about this matter ; as you have an ef- 
fectual cheek upon us, in your own hands. 
You have us in your power. If you do not 
like our administration of the government, or 
the laws we make, all you have to do is just to 
furnish no more men, of which to make govern- 



138 LETTERS TO 

ors, legislators, officers, etc., and you will dry us 
up, as all the powers of the government could 
not make a governor or legislator, without a man 
to make him of !" 

Very true, but would such an answer be sat- 
isfactory to a down-trodden people ! Such a 
check would be no remedy for existing evils, and 
therefore would amount to no check at all ! 
And the withholding of the young men of your 
church from your ministerial ranks, if such a 
thing were practicable, would be no check upon 
the present ministry ! Indeed, if you were not 
a very candid man, I should think you were 
jesting in this part of your answer. But let us 
have your second check. You say : 

"The second check which the members hold 
over their ministers is in the form of material 
aid. We are as dependent on them for the 
means, as ^e are for the men to carry on the 
work. * * * Now therefore, if you are 
tired of our ministry, just pull the purse strings 
a little tighter, and hold on with a miserly grasp, 
and you have us in your power.' ' 

The thousands of your members who have 
been under the impression that the bishops and 
preachers made the rules and administered the 
government of the church, and had things gen- 
erally their own way, will surely be satisfied 



BISHOP MORRIS, 139 

when they learn from Bishop Morris, that all 
they have to do, to^check the power and usurpa- 
tion of the ministry, is simply to starve them to 
death. Hunger is a powerful check. But in 
order to feel satisfied with such a check, your 
members would have to forget that according to 
your peculiar system the bishops have control 
of both the spiritual and temporal business and 
interests of the whole church, and therefore 
would not be likely to starve very soon ! 




140 LETTERS TO 



PART II.— LETTER I, 

SEVEN REASONS FOR NOT BEING A METHODIST. 

1. Because I could not find the name "Methodist 
Episcopal Church" in the Bible. 

2. Because I could find no divine authority for your 
peculiar system of church polity. 

3. Because the M. E. Church, as an organism, is not 
old enough to be the church of God. 

4. Because the ninth article in her religious Creed 
contradicts the Bible. 

5. Because she practices "infant sprinkling," as a 
church ordinance, without a particle of Scripture au- 
thority to sustain it. 

6. Because she receives into her communion and fel- 
lowship unconverted persons, contrary to the teaching 
and example of Christ and his Apostles. 

7. Because she has set up a mere human invention, 
" the anxious seat," which is not only without any au- 
thority in the New Testament, but contrary to the gos- 
pel of Christ. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D. : 

My Dear Sir — In the eleven Letters, consti- 
tuting the first part of this little book, I have 
said all that I design to say at present, by way 
of reviewing your book, on the " Polity of the 
M. E. Church ;" and I now propose to write a 
few letters, before closing the series, giving you 
some of *my reasons for not being a Methodist. 
I shall assvme that you are anxious to know my 
reasons, though you have not publicly asked for 
them, and perhaps my reasons are not necessary 
for your own edification and comfort : yet I 



BISHOP MORRI3. 141 

have no doubt they will be read with interest by 
thousands, in and out of the M. E. Church, and 
I am not without hope that I can make the sub- 
ject interesting even to Bishop Morris. I be- 
seech you, therefore, to hear me patiently. 

1. My first reason is, " Because I could not 
find the name, 'Methodist Episcopal Church, 9 
in the Bible.' 9 But before I examine this rea- 
son, I wish to say, I am not unfriendly to the 
M. E. Church, nor do I consider it destitute of 
piety and moral worth. On the contrary, I have 
no doubt you have a great many good and pious 
men and women among your membership. You 
have also numbers, wealth, talents and learning 
in your organism. And in your communion I 
number many per sari al and dear friends, and 
some relatives. What I shall say in these let- 
ters must not, therefore, be regarded as personal; 
but all must be understood as applying to the 
system, and not to those who profess it ; and I 
assure you, my dear Doctor, that if I could have 
been satisfied that the M. E. Church was the 
church of God, I should have gone into her com- 
munion with much pleasure. But I -will not 
detain you longer from my reasons. 

I know that it is sometimes said, " there is 
nothing in a name." And if you take that view 
of the subject, I presume you will think my first 



142 LETTERS TO 

reason wholly insufficient. Bui viewing the 
matter from my stand-point, it is a good and 
valid reason. 

The world is governed by names. Was there 
nothing in the names " Whig" and " Tory," in 
the days of the American Revolution ? Is there 
no importance in the names "Democrat," "Re- 
publican" and " Abolitionist," as used by poli- 
ticians North and South in the present day ? 
You will admit that these names mean a great 
deal. Is there nothing in the names " Arian," 
" Socinian," " Pelagian," " Calvinist" and 
"Arminian?" Some of these names bad an 
awful significance in the days of Constantine. 

And is there nothing in the modern names, 
"Methodist," "Baptist," "Presbyterian," "Qua- 
ker,' ' "Universalist" and "Campbellite ?" This 
last name has been given to a large and influen- 
tial body of Christians by their enemies in deri- 
sion. And I assure you it has an awful mean- 
ing attached to it. The church does not ac- 
knowledge it, nor answer to it ; and yet when a 
preacher of the self-styled orthodox sects wishes 
to render a man odious in some communities, it 
answers the purpose just to call him a " Camp- 
bellite." At the mention of this terrible name, 
all the old stories which have been circulated 
concerning the church of Christ at once start 



BISHOP MORRIS. 143 

into view, and the man is looked upon as a mon- 
ster ! a sort of Ishmaelite, whose hand is against 
every man, and every man's hand should be 
against him. 

Yes, Doctor, there is much in a name, as you 
will admit, and as I shall more fully demonstrate 
before I am through. Take an example or two. 
The name "Bishop" indicates your authority 
in the M. E. Church. Stripped of this name, 
you would in a moment lose all your episcopal 
authority, and become weak like other men ; and 
your word would have no more authority than 
the word of one of your inferior clergy. 

I recollect an anecdote of Bishop Roberts, 
who was a very plain and sensible man, which 
will illustrate the power of a name. On his way 
to conference, he stopped for the night where 
he was a stranger. The family were Method- 
ists, and were expecting the Bishop that very 
evening, but had no idea that the plain old man 
who had arrived was the veritable Bishop. A 
young circuit preacher on his way to conference 
had also called to stay all night, expecting to 
meet the Bishop there, and intending to accom- 
pany him on to conference. The young preacher 
was a fair specimen of Young America, rather 
a dandy. 

When Bishop Roberts . arrived, he soon saw 



144 LETTERS TO 

the position of affairs, and concluded to remain 
in cog. And no one suspected him of being 
the distinguished public functionary they were 
expecting. Being weary, the Bishop retired 
early and supperless to bed, and was informed 
by the host that, as they were expecting the dis- 
tinguished Bishop Roberts there that night, they 
were keeping a bed for him when he came, and 
that he must therefore share the bed with a 
young circuit preacher, who would come in to 
bed after a while. 

The young man sat up till a late hour, having 
a good time with the young people, and then 
coming into the room, he found the plain old 
man duly inaugurated in his bed. So he crowded 
the old man back to the wall, occupying nearly 
the whole bed himself. The old man then com- 
menced a conversation with the young preacher, 
which led him to remark that they had been 
expecting Bishop Roberts along that evening on 
his way to conference, but had been disappointed, 
as he had not arrived. The old man remarked 
that he was a member of that respectable de- 
nomination, and was slightly acquainted with 
the Bishop. At this announcement the young- 
preacher moved over a little, thus allowing the 
old gentleman a better margin. 
A little further conversation revealed the fact 



BISHOP MORRIS. 145 

that the plain, old fogy gentleman was a Meth- 
odist preacher. At this, the young man moved 
still further over, dividing the bed with the old 
man, and began to apologize for his vain con- 
duct during the evening:, of which the old man 
had been a silent witness, and for having crowded 
him so nearly out of the bed. A little further 
conversation brought out the startling fact that 
the plain old man in bed with him was the veri- 
table Bishop Roberts himself ! Upon learning 
this fact, the young man sprang out of the bed, 
and falling upon his knees, begged the Bishop's 
pardon for having treated him so rudely ; and 
remembering that they had suffered the old gen- 
tleman to retire supperless to bed, he begged 
him to permit him to have supper ordered for 
him even then. This, however, the Bishop re- 
fused to do, and gave his young brother a very 
severe lecture, which he received with great 
humility. 

Now, what was it that wrought this wonder- 
ful change in the feelings and conduct of the 
young preacher ? It was nothing that he saw 
in the old man. It was simply the awe inspired 
in his mind by the power of the name " Bishop." 
He could treat the old man with contempt ; but 
the announcement that he was a Bishop brought 
the young man to his knees with an apology. 
10 



146 LETTERS TO 

Do you say that it does not matter what name 
a person wears, so he is a true disciple of Christ ? 
I admit that this is plausible, but is it true ? 
What would you think of a lady who had a good 
and kind husband, who, notwithstanding, would 
persist in calling herself by the name of some 
other man? Would it imply no impropriety, 
or want of love and respect for her lawful hus- 
band ? Would it satisfy him for her to say, in 
justification of her course, ''All is right, my 
dear husband ; I acknowledge you as my lawful 
husband, and I assure you that I am your true 
and devoted wife ; and it does not matter whose 
name I wear — the name is nothing ; I certainly 
intend no disrespect to you ?" 

Such reasoning, so far from satisfying him, 
would only be adding insult to injury. Well, 
the church of God is called "the bride, the 
Lamb's wife." Again, she is represented as a 
" bride adorned for her husband." Therefore 
right reason says, that as a dutiful wife she 
should wear the name of her husband and Lord, 
" who gave himself for her, that he might sanc- 
tify and cleanse her, by the washing of water by 
the word." And for her to choose another 
name by which to be known, is to treat him 
with contempt, and show a want of love and re- 
spect for the heavenly husband, wlio is Christ. 



BISHOP MORRIS. 147 

I became religious when I was quite young. 
And before uniting with any church, I exam- 
ined the doctrines and discipline of the M. E. 
Church, and I also made diligent search of the 
holy Scriptures, to the best of my ability, and 
the creeds of all parties, to ascertain, if I could, 
who of all the sects were right, or nearest right. 
I was willing to be a Methodist, or any thing 
else, provided I could be satisfied that such an 
organism was scriptural and divine. And I 
knew that if I could find the name, doctrines 
and government of the M. E. Church in the 
New Testament, it would be right to unite 
with it. 

But I need hardly say to a man of your expe- 
rience and research, that I searched in vain. I 
failed to find the Methodist Church, as such, 
once named or even alluded to in the Bible. It 
is true that I found where Agrippa said to Paul, 
" Almost thou persuadest me to be a Chris- 
tian,' ' not a " Methodist.' ' I also found where 
Peter said to the disciples of his time, "If any 
man suffer as a Christian, let him not be 
ashamed." But I could not find where he ever 
told any one to " suffer as a Methodist, a Bap- 
tist, a Presbyterian, or a Campbellite !" From 
this I concluded that if any man should suffer 
on account of any of these sectarian names, he 



148 LETTERS TO 

would have great reason to be ashamed ; that is, 
if he were to wear any of these party names of 
choice. 

But I admit that I found the name " Method- 
ist,' ' but not in the Bible. I found it in a little 
book called the " Doctrines and Discipline of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church." And I learn 
from the history of the rise and progress of your 
societies in England, that the name " Method- 
ist" was first given to your people in derision 
by their enemies. But, strange to say, they 
afterwards adopted it as a badge of distinction ! 
The name is only about a hundred years old, 
and is therefore too recent to be found in the 
Bible, by about seventeen centuries ! 

Therefore the name " Methodist" is not from 
heaven, but of men, and wicked men at that ! 
Finding this to be so, I could not adopt it, or 
consent to wear it, in view of my responsibility 
to God. But in searching the Scriptures for the 
" good and the right way," I also found the 
following Scripture, u And the disciples were 
called Christians first at Antioch," Acts xi. 26. 
They were not called "Methodists," "Bap- 
tists," "Presbyterians," or " Campbellites," 
but simply " Christians." 

Do you say that this name also was given in 
derision by the enemies of the disciples ? If so, 



BISHOP MORRIS. 149 

please look into your Greek Testament, and you 
will see your mistake. The Greek word in the 
text which our translators have rendered, in the 
common version, "called," is Tcreemafinai, from 
hreematizo. This word occurs nine times 
in the Greek Xew Testament, as follows : 

Acts ii. 12, and is translated, "warned of 
God." 

Acts ii. 22, also translated, " warned of God." 
Luke ii. 26, translated, " revealed unto him 
by the Spirit." 

Acts x. 22, translated, "warned of God." 
Acts xi. 26, translated, " called Christians." 
Rom. vii. 2, translated, "shall be called." 
Heb. viii. 5, translated, " was admonished of 
God." 

Heb. xi. 7, translated, "warned of God." 
Heb.^ii. 25, translated, " who spake." 
This word, Jcreematizo, is defined in our lexi- 
cons thus : In iS'ew Testament, " to impart a 
divine warning, or admonition, give instruction 
or directions under the guidance of inspiration ; 
and pass ; to receive a divine admonition, be 
warned of God, be divinely instructed ; in tears ; 
to be called, to be named, be known by a par- 
ticular appellation," etc. 

Therefore, in strict accordance with the mean- 
ing of this word, as given above, and which you 



150 LETTERS TO 

know is correct, the passage under considera- 
tion (Acts xi. 26) might be rendered thus: 
" And the disciples were called, or named of 
God, Christians first at Antioch." Now, Doc- 
tor, if you will take the trouble to examine all 
the above examples, where the word occurs in 
the Greek Testament, you will find that I am 
correct, and that it is never used in the New 
Testament in any other sense than that of a di- 
vine warning, or divine direction. 

It follows, then, with the clearness of demon- 
stration, that the name u Christian," and not 
" Methodist," is the divinely authorized name, 
and was given to the disciples of Christ, by God 
himself, at the great city of Antioch, after the 
multitude of the disciples, both Jew and Gen- 
tile, had become very great in that city. This 
divine name, as you know, was receded and 
worn by all the disciples from that time onward, 
till the grand apostasy. Properly speaking, 
there were but two parties — the church of God, 
who were called Christians by divine authority, 
and the world. 

The followers of Christ were persecuted under 
this divine name, and they were not ashamed to 
"suffer as Christians." They knew that there 
was no other name given on earth and among 
men, for salvation, but the name of Christ, and 



BISHOP MORRIS. 151 

they rejoiced that they were counted worthy to 
suffer for his name. James says to his breth- 
ren, " Do they not blaspheme that worthy name 
by the which ye are called ?" (James ii. 7.) 
What "worthy name," Doctor, do you think it 
was by which the disciples "were called V 
Was it " Methodist ?" No ; nobody was called 
by that name in that age of the world, and for 
seventeen hundred years afterwards ! It was 
the name " Christian.' ' It was the "worthy 
name," as it was bestowed upon them by God 
himself. Again, Paul says, " For this cause I 
bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Je- 
sus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven 
and earth is named ;" Eph. iii. 14, 15. 

What name think you, Doctor, did the heav- 
enly Father give to his great family ? Was it 
the name Methodist ? You do not claim this, I 
know. Was it the name Christian f This was 
certainly the "new name," which the Lord 
named. He called them Christians at Antioch. 
Christian is the family name. Christ, the Head 
of the family, and Christian, the family, so called 
or named from him. Christ means the Anoint- 
ed, and as all his disciples receive the Holy 
Spirit, which is the unction or anointing, it is 
proper that they wear the name Christian, which 
the mouth of the Lord has named. I am sure 
that you can not object to this. 



152 LETTERS TO 

Sectarianism, which is only another name for 
heresy, sprang up out of the apostasy, and the 
parties named themselves according to their own 
fancy. They were not satisfied with the divine- 
ly given name of the family of God — " Chris- 
tian/' This was not sufficiently explicit for 
them. As each new party differed in some 
things from all the older parties, it must needs 
have a new name to distinguish it from all the 
rest. And after the great reformation of the 
sixteenth century was fully inaugurated and had 
proved a success, one party of Protestants called 
themselves Lutherans, because Luther was their 
principal teacher and leader ; and afterwards the 
Calvinists, at Geneva, were ca'led Presbyterians, 
from the form of church government which they 
adopted. And as new parties broke off from 
these, they assumed new names, to indicate the 
differences. 

In this way, the followers of Mr. Wesley were 
called Methodists, not by divine authority, nor 
by themselves, but by sinners. This occurred 
while they were all members of the Church of 
England. But when they separated from that 
church, they adopted it as their denominational 
cognomen. 

Thus, after examining the whole subject as 
fully as I was capable, and finding no mention 



BISHOP MORRIS. 153 

of the " Methodist" name in the oracles of God, 
I could not consent to wear it. I saw that it 
was a mere humanism, of no authority whatever, 
and only calculated to keep Christians divided, 
and prevent the union for which Jesus prayed. 
(John xvii. 21.) 

But I did find in the oracles of God the good 
old family name " Christian/' given by divine 
authority, first at Antioch, and which was worn 
and honored by Paul and all the Apostles and 
primitive Christians, and all that mighty host 
of confessors of the divine Savior who suffered 
martyrdom during the first three hundred years 
of the Christian era. Under this worthy name, 
they suffered, and would not deny it. And 
finding a religious organism answering precisely 
to the description of the church of God found in 
the New Testament, holding fast the u form of 
sound words" and " contending earnestly for 
the faith once delivered to the saints," and wear- 
ing the same good old family name Christian, 
I was satisfied that I had found " the church of 
God," and accordingly I united myself with 
her, to keep the ordinances as delivered to her 
by the Apostles. "Was I not right, Doctor ? 

And permit me to assure you that I have 
never had any doubts of the correctness of my 
action in this matter. Indeed, I am sure that 



154 LETTERS TO 

we are right, and can not be wrong, in our at- 
tempt to return to the " old paths," and to build 
upon the " foundation of Apostles and Proph- 
ets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner- 
stone." If any thing is right and safe under 
these broad heavens, it is the ground we occu- 
py. It is simply to take God at his word, be- 
lieve what he has said, and do what he has com- 
manded, and in the way he has commanded it, 
and expect the fulfillment of all his promises. 
The Lord lead us into all truth. 



BISHOP MORRIS. 155 



LETTER II. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D. : 

31 y Dear Sir — My second reason for not be- 
ing a Methodist is, "Because I could Jin d no 
authority in the Bible for the peculiar polity of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church." 

You will not be surprised at my failure to 
find this authority in the holy oracles, as you 
have not been able to find it there yourself. In- 
deed, you do not claim divine authority for it, 
but very distinctly admit, as quoted in a former 
letter, that your polity is human. Let me re- 
fresh your mind with that admission. You say 
on page 1 5th : 

" The government of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church is peculiar. * * * It is eminently 
practical ; was not formed by theorizing, but is 
the result of experience. As Methodism arose 
and progressed, where the want of a rule was 
felt to aid the work, it was adopted. If its 
practical working was found to be good it was 
retained, but if not good, it was modified or 
abolished." 

To the same effect, I quote also from the ad- 
dress in your Discipline, as follows: "We es- 
teem it our duty and privilege most earnestly to 



156 LETTERS TO 

recommend to you, as members of our church, 
our form or Discipline, which has been founded 
on the experience of a long series of years ; as 
also on the observations and remarks we have 
made on ancient and modern churches.' ' (Dis. 
page 5th.) 

From these testimonies it is evident that you 
do not regard your peculiar polity as of divine 
authority, but an experiment founded, not upon 
the Bible, or drawn from the Bible, but "found- 
ed upon the experience of a long series of years, 
and also on the observations and remarks which 
we [the Bishops] have made on ancient and 
modern churches." Jesus did not build his 
church on the "experience and observations ,, 
of bishops or laymen, but upon the truth con 
fessed by Peter, " Thou art the Christ, the Son 
of the living God." 

Mr. Inskip, your historian, fully admits the 
humanism of Methodism, in the following words: 
" Before entering upon the merits of the discus- 
sion suggested in the title-page, the reader is 
requested to pause a moment, to contemplate 
the life and character of the founder of Method- 
ism, John Wesley ;" p. 18. 

Here it is distinctly claimed that John Wes- 
ley was the founder of Methodism ; while every 
one knows that Jesus Christ was the founder 






BISHOP MORRIS. 157 

of Christianity and the Christian church. 
Therefore Methodism is not Christianity, your- 
selves being judges. Once more ; Mr. Inskip 
says, " A more wise or better arranged system 
of religious and moral enterprise could not have 
been conceived. Of course, like all other human 
institutions, it has defects and imperfections." 
(Inskip, p. 65.) 

Let the above suffice. Of course, with the 
above facts before his mind, no one would ex- 
pect to find the peculiar polity of the M. E. 
Church in the Bible. It is not there. " It is 
peculiar." Neither the bishops nor historians 
of the church claim to have found any traces of 
it there, and as honest men frankly admit that it 

is a HUMAN INSTITUTION. 

I could not, therefore, embrace it. And find- 
ing that there was a divine "form of doctrine," 
and that the Lord Jesus had established a gov- 
ernment over his church, which was definitely 
set out in the New Testament, and that the 
Christian church held the doctrine and submitted 
to the government of the Lord Jesus Christ, as 
laid down in the New Testament, received and 
practiced by the church of Christ in the begin- 
ning, without addition or amendment, I became 
satisfied that it was the church of God, and ac- 
cordingly united with her. Was I not right, 
Doctor ? 



158 LETTERS TO 

*My third reason is, "Because, as an organ* 
ism, it is not of God, but of the fathers." 

We have already anticipated most that we 
have to say under this head. I recognize many 
good and pious people in the M. E. Church, who 
are no doubt Christians, because they have be- 
lieved on the name of the Lord Jesus, and have 
obeyed his gospel ; yet the M. E. Church, as a 
peculiar organism, is not of God, but of the fa- 
thers. As such, it was founded by Mr. Wesley 
and his coadjutors, about a century ago, and 
every one knows that no such peculiar organism 
ever existed before, under an^ dispensation. On 
the other hand, the church of Jesus Christ is a 
divine organism, being " fitly framed together 
and compacted by that which every joint sup- 
plieth." Jesus says of his church, "Upon this 
rock I will build my church. " The church, as 
a divine organism, was fully organized on the 
day of Pentecost, when Jesus, the Head of the 
church, was glorified, and sent down the Holy 
Spirit, some seventeen hundred years before 
Methodism was founded by the fathers. 

God is glorified in this church, as Paul de- 
clares : " To whom be glory in the church, 
throughout all ages, world without end." The 
conclusion I drew from this was, that if God 
was glorified in the church, he was not glorified 






BISHOP MORRIS. 159 

out of it — and therefore I united with the churph 
of Christ, that I might be enabled to "glorify 
God in my body and spirit, which are the 
Lord's." It was with me simply a question be- 
tween the divine and the human organisms. 
Was I not right, Doctor ? 

My fourth reason was, "Because the Ninth 
Article of your religious creed contradicts the 
word of God" I will here quote the objec- 
tionable article in full, from your Discipline. 
Here it is : 

" IX. We are accounted righteous before 
God, only for the merit of our Lord and Savior 
Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works 
or deservings ; wherefore, that we are justified 
by iaith only, is a most wholesome doctrine and 
very full of comfort." 

As the contradictions are palpable, and can 
be seen at a glance, I need not elaborate them. 
I shall only note two contradictions. 1. "We 
are accounted righteous before God only for the 
merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by 
faith." This contradicts the apostle John in the 
following declaration: "Little children, let no 
man deceive you ; he that doeth righteousness 
is righteous, even as he is righteous," 1 John iii. 

Your ninth article declares, as we have seen, 
"that we are accounted righteous before God 



160 LETTERS TO 

only for the merit of Christ by faith,' ' while 
John declares that we are accounted righteous 
before God when we do righteousness. Now I 
reason thus : if it is for doing righteousness 
that we are declared righteous before God, it is 
not by faith only in the merit of Christ. All 
can see the discrepancy here. 

2. The second contradiction is still more pal- 
pable. In conclusion of your ninth article above 
quoted, you affirm that " we are justified by 
faith only is a most wholesome doctrine and very 
full of comfort.' ' In this you flatly contradict 
the apostle James, where he says : 

"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, 
being alone." Your article says, "we are jus- 
tified by faith only." James contradicts this, 
and declares that such faith is dead, being alone. 
And you know that dead faith can justify no 
one. But let us look at the 21st verse of the 
second chapter of James. Here he says, M Was 
not Abraham, our father, justified by works, 
when he had offered Isaac his son upon the 
altar?" 

Your ninth article contradicts this by saying 
that "we are justified by faith only." Now, 
Doctor, which shall we believe, the Discipline 
or the inspired apostle James ? Both can not 
be true. But if any one has failed to see the 



BISHOP MORRIS. 161 

contradiction, I will ask them to read the 24th 
verse, as follows : "Ye see then how that by 
works a man is justified, and not by faith only." 
Now I am sure you see the contradiction. The 
Apostle says it "is not by faith only," and 
your ninth article contradicts this and declares 
that it " is by faith only." Every one can see 
it. If the apostle James had been discussing 
the question of justification with the bishops of 
the M. E. Church, or Mr. Wesley himself, with 
your ninth article before him, he could not have 
contradicted it more pointedly than he has done 
in the above passage. I have no doubt you and 
many others of your brethren have seen and 
deplored the contradiction. Why then have 
you not taken the proper steps to have it 
changed ? 

My fifth reason is, "Because she practices 
infant sprinkling, which is an unmeaning and 
unscriptural ceremony ." The ceremony is un- 
meaning, because it represents nothing. Bap- 
tism, which is an immersion of the whole body 
in water, is a very significant ceremony, as it 
sets forth the doctrine of Christ, and is in fact 
the " form of the doctrine." The Lord's sup- 
per is a monumental institution, and sets forth 
the death of Christ for the sins of the world. 
And immersion is also a monumental institution, 
11 



162 LETTERS TO 

and sets forth his burial and resurrection from 
the grave. In this we can see a fitness and sig- 
nificance. 

Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose 
again from the dead. So we die to sin, and are 
buried with him by immersion, and rise again 
from the grave of water to live a new life. But 
w 7 e can see no meaning or fitness in the sprink- 
ling of a few drops of water upon the forehead 
of a young child, or an adult. What does it 
signify ? JjToi -the inward w r ork of the Holy 
Spirit upon the heart, for the promise of the 
Spirit is only received by faith, and infants can 
exercise no faith. To infants, then, it is an un- 
meaning ceremony. To adults it signifies noth- 
ing. You do not pretend that the "inward 
grace," or "work of the Spirit/' is at all con- 
nected with yjur sprinkling ceremony, or that 
it necessarily follows the rite, at any future 
time. It is therefore an unmeaning ceremony 
to both adults and infants. 

That it is an iimcriplural ceremony, I need 
hardly take time to prove. But I will briefly 
examine a few of your proofs and arguments in 
favor of the practice. I now affirm that in every 
case of baptism recorded in the New Testament, 
believers, and not infants, were the subjects of 
the ordinance ; and immenwn, and not qrrink- 



BISHOP 3IORRIS. 163 

ling, the action, or as you term it, "the mode.' , 
Your principal argument in favor of infant 
baptism is based upon the assumption that bap- , 
tism came in the room of Jewish circumcision ; 
and that as infants were the subjects of that 
bloody rite, so infants are properly entitled to 
baptism. But I answer, this is a mere assump- 
tion , and therefore the conclusion you draw 
from it is false. The Old Covenant, with all 
its rites and ceremonies and institutions, was 
typical of the New Covenant, and its institutions 
and ceremonies ; but circumcision w^as not the 
type of Christian baptism. There would be no 
aptness in the figure. Jewish circumcision was 
a peculiar rite, and none but the male infants 
were entitled to it. While baptism is command- 
ed to every creature who hears and believes the 
gospel, both male and female. There was noth- 
ing like "sprinkling" about circumcision, and 
consequently it could not be a type of your 
sprinkling. 

But while I deny that baptism came in the 
room of circumcision, I admit that it was typi- 
cal. And we are not left in doubt as to its an- 
titype. Paul says, " In whom also ye are cir- 
cumcised with the circumcision made without 
hands, in putting off the body of the sins o( the 
flesh by the circumcision of Christ/ ' (Col. ii. 

lOi li bus 



164 LETTERS TO 

11.) Again, the same Apostle says, " But he 
is a Jew who is one inwardly ; and circumcision 
is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the 
letter." (Rom. ii. 29.) 

Jewish circumcision was "outward in the 
flesh," while its antitype, Christian circumcis- 
ion, is inward, and of the heart. Infant sprink- 
ling is outward, and upon the forehead of the 
babe, and is always, I believe, performed with 
hands. This can not then be Christian circum- 
cision, as it is inward and "made without hands." 
The change of heart and pardon of sins is the 
antitype, or circumcision of Christ, and is done 
by the Lord himself. It is true that it stands 
connected with Christian immersion, as you will 
see by reading Col. ii. 11, 12. 

This being the chief corner stone of the whole 
edifice of Pedobaptism, and being a mere as- 
sumption, having no foundation in fact, it fol- 
lows that the theory itself is false ! Here I 
might rest the matter, but I wish to examine a 
few of your principal proofs. You quote the 
commission : 

" Go into all the world, and preach the gospel 
to every creature ; he that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved, and he that believeth not 
shall be damned.' ' You then ask with an air of 
peculiar triumph, " Are not infants creatures ? 
and if so, entitled to baptism V* 



BISHOP MORRIS. 1G5 

In answer, they are not creatures in the sense 
of the commission. The creatures of the com- 
mission were all capable of believing and obey- 
ing the gospel, or rejecting it. Infants are not 
capable of doing either, as you very well know. 
But suppose I admit for one moment, just to 
test the argument, that infants are a part of 
"every creature," spoken of in the commission, 
and then let us read the commission with this in- 
terpretation, and we shall be able, to see the "na- 
kedness of the land." We read it thus : " Go 
preach the gospel to every adult and every in- 
fant ; every adult and infant who believes the 
gospel and is baptized shall be saved, and every 
adult and infant that believes not shall be 
damned." 

How does it suit you, Doctor ? The para- 
phrase is correct, if your doctrine is true. But 
such a construction of the commission, so far 
from proving that infants are the proper subjects 
of baptism, it proves the awful doctrine of uni- 
versal infant damnation ! ! I do not charge you, 
my dear Bishop, with believing this monstrous 
doctrine, but I do say such is the legitimate 
conclusion to which must come from such 
premises ! " He that believeth not shall be 
damned." Infants can not believe, and there- 
fore if they are part of the creatures mentioned 



166 LETTERS TO 

in the commission, then they must be damned ! 

But the premises are false, and the conclusion 
wrong. Infants are not referred to at all in the 
commission, and no infant will ever be damned 
for not believing, or for any other cause. All 
infants will be saved. 

But you argue that you have examples of in- 
fant baptism in the household baptisms recorded 
in the New Testament. I suppose a man of 
your information and good sense would hardly 
rely upon the household baptisms to prove in- 
fant sprinkling, but the "inferior clergy" of the 
M. E. Church quote them as furnishing an un- 
answerable argument in favor of your peculiar 
practice. Let us briefly examine the history of 
these baptisms. There are only four household 
baptisms recorded. 

1 . Lydia and her household. A record of this 
case is found in Acts xvi. 13-15. "And we sat 
down, and spake unto the women which resorted 
thither. ' Who did the Apostles preach to on 
this occasion ? To the women and infants ? — 
No. To the women only. And the Lord opened 
Lydia's heart, and she attended to the things 
spoken of by Paul, and she was baptized and her 
household. All women. The baptism was no 
doubt performed in the river, upon the margin 
of which they were assembled. No allusion t o 









BISHOP MORRIS. 167 

infants. And at the 40th verse they are called 
"brethren," not "infants." 

2. In the same chapter we have the history 
of the baptism of the Jailor and his household. 
At 32d verse Luke says that Paul and Silas 
"spake unto him (the Jailor) the word of the 
Lord, and to all that were in his house." Sen- 
sible men do not preach to infants ; hence we 
must conclude that this household were all ca- 
pable of hearing and believing the gospel. And 
after their baptism Luke says, " He rejoiced, be- 
lieving in God, with all his house." From this it 
is evident there were no infants among them, for 
they all believed, and all rejoiced with the Jailor. 

3. The next case is that of Cornelius, recorded 
in 10th chapter of Acts. There is no mention 
of infants in this household, but on the contrary 
they are spoken of as "hearing," "believing." 
" The Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the 
word." They "spake with tongues and magni- 
fied God." Infants never speak with tongues. 
" They prayed him to tarry certain days." In- 
fants never do so. There was, therefore, no in- 
fants in this household. 

4. The last case is the "household of Stepha- 
nus." Concerning the baptism of this house- 
hold we know but little. Paul refers to it twice, 
1 Cor. i. 16 and 1 Cor. xvi. 15. In the first he 



168 LETTERS TO 

simply says he "baptized the household of Ste* 
phanus." And in the last place he says, " 
beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of 
Stephanus, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, 
and that they have addicted themselves to the 
ministry of the saints,) that ye submit yourselves 
unto such, and to every one that helpeth with 
us, and laboreth." 

Infants are not in the habit of " addicting 
themselves to the ministry," nor do they help 
with the Apostles and labor in the gospel. This 
household all did ; therefore there were no in- 
fants in it Men do not submit themselves to 
infants ; yet Paul exhorted the brethren at Cor- 
inth to "submit themselves" to this household : 
therefore there were no infants in it. 






BISHOP MORRIS, 1G9 



LETTER III. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D. : 

My Dear Sir — My sixth reason for not being 
a Methodist is, " Because the M. E Church 
receives into her communion and fellowship un- 
converted persons, contrary to the Scriptures." 
That this objection to your church polity is well 
taken, must be apparent to- every candid reader 
who will carefully examine the following facts 
and testimony. Your church is made up of 
three very distinct classes of members, as fol- 
low : 

I. Those who profess to have been converted 
to God, and to enjoy the pardon of sins through 
the blood of Jesus Christ. Such persons pro- 
fess to be "justified by faith only" — to have the 
love of God shed abroad in their hearts by the 
Holy Spirit. And a portion of this first class 
profess complete sanctification ; by which I un- 
derstand them to claim sinless perfection, in 
thought, word and action. 

2. The second class of members are your 
probationers. This class is numerous and re- 
spectable in all your churches. The only qual- 
ification required of them, in order to member- 
ship, is, that they shall "evidence a desire to flea 



170 LETTERS TO 

from the wrath to come and to be saved from 
sin." Those who evidence such desire may be- 
come members of your church for six months 
on. trial ; and if they continue to evidence such 
desire, at the end of the six months' trial, they 
may continue members of your church without 
conversion, or regeneration. 

Your Discipline, the fundamental law of your 
church, clearly teaches the above. And such 
unconverted persons may live in your church 
to the end of life without ever experiencing a 
change of heart. 

3. The third class of members in your church 
is composed of infants, who have been sprinkled 
and received into it upon the faith of one or 
both of their parents. This is a numerous class 
and become members of your church, not be- 
cause they are believers, or have been converted, 
but because they are the children of parents who 
were members before them. Therefore, the ba- 
sis of their membership is ordinary generation, 
and not regeneration — flesh and blood, and not 
spirit. 

It would perhaps be a fair estimate of the rel- 
ative strength of these elements of membership 
in your church, to say that one half of the nom- 
inal membership of your church, comprising 
the three classes above mentioned, do not pro- 



BISHOP MORKIS. 171 

fess religion at all, and are therefore unconTerted 
persons, according to your own records. This, 
I think you will admit, is a liberal estimate of 
your membership. And what a startling fact 
is here developed ! You claim, I believe, to 
have a membership of one million in the world. 
And according to our estimate above, you have 
five hundred thousand unconverted persons in 
your church. 

I have conversed with some very intelligent 
Methodists, who placed the proportion of un- 
converted persons in your church at a much 
higher figure than I have in the above calcula- 
tion. I have known many members of your 
church who have joined on probation, without 
religion, and some who have lived and died 
members in an unconverted state, according to 
their own profession. 

I recollect of becoming acquainted with an 
eld gentleman, a few years ago, at the house of 
his son-in-law in Kentucky, whose head was 
white with the heats of some seventy summers. 
He was a Methodist, and greatly opposed to the 
u Christian Church/' and very zealous for the 
M. E. Church, of which he informed me he had 
been a member, if I recollect right, for some 
forty years. But in the course of our friendly 
conversation, he frankly acknowledged that he 



172 LETTERS TO 

had no religion, never having been converted ! 
He said that he knew he was then, and always 
had been, an unpardoned sinner, and that if he 
should die in his present condition, hell would 
be his portion ! 

I asked the old father if he was not still seek- 
ing religion ? He answered, that he was and 
had been constantly seeking religion for the last 
forty years, and expected to seek on as long as 
he lived, and to die seeking. I asked him if he 
would not listen to me, while I would read him 
a few scriptures, and show him the defects in 
the system of Methodism, which he had no 
doubt honestly embraced and maintained all his 
life. To this he shook his head, remarking at 
the same time that he had no desire to hear an 
argument on the subject — he was satisfied with 
the system, and had fully made up his mind to 
abide by the consequences ; and he did not now, 
at his advanced age, wish to have his mind dis- 
turbed by hearing an argument against it. 

And this case, my dear Bishop, is only one of 
a thousand of the same kind. The very struc- 
ture and genius of Methodism admits of and 
contemplates a large unconverted element in its 
membership ; and you know that such an ele- 
ment exists in your churches. I once heard 
Bishop Waugh say, in a sermon which he 






BISHOP MORRIS. 173 

preached at an annual conference, at Blooming- 
ton, Ind,, "I charge the Methodist preachers to 
be more industrious — to imitate the old pioneer 
preachers in zeal and labors for the salvation of 
sinners and the advancement of Methodism. 
Owing to the laziness and want of zeal among 
the preachers, the exhorters and class leaders 
and members have become in a measure luke- 
warm. We have now near a million of mem- 
bers in the world, one half of whom are none 
the better for being Methodists!" What say 
you, Bishop Morris ? Was Bishop Waugh cor- 
rect in his estimate of the unconverted element, 
nominally members of your church ? If he 
was, then I am right in my calculations. 

And I know you will not deny that a case 
may occur where a whole Methodist church may 
be composed of the unconverted element. The 
church may be a sound, orthodox Methodist 
church, according to the Discipline and usages 
of the church, and not a converted person in it ! 
It might occur in this way : Suppose a Method- 
ist church organized in the usual way, composed 
of some converted persons and some unconvert- 
ed, as all Methodist churches are. Time rolls 
on, and no conversions take place in the church, 
and one by one the converted persons move 
away and die, and some fall from grace. All 



174 LETTERS TO 

the accessions to their number are seekers, not 
converted. Thus the converted element, in 
some form, perishes ; all pass out of the church, 
and leave only the unconverted seekers, compos- 
ing the church. Yes, and the preacher, too, 
maybe an unconverted man, and yet a Method- 
ist preacher — as John Wesley was for some ten 
years after he commenced preaching Method- 
ism ! But still this would be a Methodist 
church within the meaning of the law in the 
case. 

You may say the case is an unreasonable one, 
and will perhaps never occur. I answer, it may 
never occur ; but still it is a supposable case, 
and may occur. It is not a probable, but it is 
a possible case. 

I could not, therefore, as an honest man, with 
qhe New Testament before me, unite with the 
M. E. Church, composed in part of mere seek- 
ers — unconverted persons, and which might ex- 
ist without a single converted person in it, either 
preacher or people, and still be the M. E. 
Church. And especially when* I found, from 
reading the New Testament, that in the begin- 
ning none were recognized as members of the 
church of God, except they were converted and 
had the spirit of Christ. Let us look at a few 
passages of Scripture that go to establish this 
position. 



BISHOP MORRIS. 175 

The first passage I will introduce is the dec- 
laration of Jesus to N icodemus : " Jesus an- 
swered, Verity, verily, I say unto thee, except 
a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can 
not enter into the kingdom of God ;" John iii. 5. 

All commentators and theologians agree that 
the "kingdom of- God" here referred to, was 
the visible church, which Christ came into the 
world to establish; and that the new birth is 
conversion. This is plain and unequivocal, and 
proves that Christ did not recognize any one as 
a member of his kingdom, or church, till he was 
" born again," or converted. But in the face of 
this plain declaration of the Master, you take 
into your church a multitude of persons who 
do not claim to have been "born again," or 
converted. 

Again*, " And Jesus called a little child unto 
him, and sat him in the midst of them, and 
said, Verily, I say unto you, except ye be con- 
verted, and become as little children, ye shall 
not enter into the kingdom of heaven ;" Matt, 
xviii. 2, 3. In this passage Jesus, the great 
Teacher and Head of the church, emphatically 
says that, "Except a man be converted, he 
shall not enter into the kingdom of. heaven," or 
church. If you had been among the disciples 
on that interesting occasion, with your present 



176 LETTERS TO 

views, and zeal for the traditions of the fathers, 
would you not have said to the Lord, " Blessed 
Master, are you not a little mistaken ? Our 
fathers have adopted, as a 'prudential regula- 
tion,' the plan of taking into our church all per- 
sons who 'desire to flee from the wrath to 
come, and be saved from sin/ unconverted seek- 
ers, and we have found that it was a ' capital 
hit. 9 But according to your teaching, dear 
Lord, one-half of our membership is un- 
churched !" But Jesus says, "Except ye be 
converted ye shall not enter into the kingdom," 
or church of Christ ! So you see, my dear 
Doctor, that your practice upon this point is a 
palpable violation of the law of the Lord ! 

The three thousand additions to the church or 
kingdom of heaven, on the day of Pentecost, the 
very day the church was first organized, were 
all converted persons. They all heard the gos- 
pel preached on that day, by Peter and the rest 
of the Apostles, and believed it, were pierced in 
their hearts, inquired what they must do — were 
told what to do in order to be saved, and they 
gladly received the word, obeyed the gospel, 
were pardoned, received the gift of the Holy 
Spirit, and " continued steadfastly in the Apos- 
tles' doctrine, and in the fellowship, and in 
breakiug of bread, and in prayers." So you 



BISHOP MORRIS. 177 

see, by reading the second chapter of Acts, 
that none were added to them on that day, but 
the converted and saved. And you will see, too, 
that they were not taken in on six months' trial • 
They were full members the very first day. 

Read also the third chapter of Acts, and you 
will find that some five thousand more were 
added, but not till after they were all converted. 
The condition of such membership, as laid down 
by Peter, was the following : " Repent ye 
therefore, and be converted, that your sins may 
be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall 
come from the presence of the Lord;" Acts 
iii. 19. 

This being the condition laid down by the 
apostle Peter, it follows that none were received 
into the church but those who complied with 
the conditions thus laid down. But I need not 
multiply quotations to prove what you do not 
dispute, and what every reader of the New Tes- 
tament knows to be true, that no one was ad- 
mitted into the primitive church until he was 
converted. In this matter your church is 
wholly unlike the apostolic or primitive church, 
and knowing the fact, I could not consistently 
join the M. E. Church. The prophet Jeremiah, 
xxxi. 31, speaking of the church of God under 
the new covenant, declares concerning the 
12 



US LETTERS TO 

membership, " for all shall know me, from the 
least of them to the greatest of them." If the 
Prophet was correct then, no unconverted per- 
son was ever to be admitted into the church un- 
der the New Covenant. 

But I did unite with the church of God, 
when I was converted. Acting upon my own 
faith, I confessed the Lord Jesus before men, 
and then I " obeyed from the heart the form of 
the doctrine" delivered to the church in the 
beginning. Being thus converted to God, I en- 
joyed the witness of the Spirit, and was recog- 
nized as a member of the family of Christ on 
earth, not on trial for six months, but in full 
fellowship on the very first day. 

This letter is not quite so long as the average 
of the former letters, but as I can not say all I 
wish to say in this, I will close it here, and in 
my next, which will be the last of the series, I 
will briefly give my seventh reason* 



BISHOP 1TORRIS. 179 



LETTER IV. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D. : 

My Dear Sir — I now come to my seventh 
reason for not being a Methodist, which is the 
following: "Because the M. E. Church has 
set up a mere human invention, the anxious seat 
or mourning bench, which is not only without 
any authority in the New Testament, but is 
positively contrary to and subversive of the 
gospel of Jesus Christ." 

I am aware that some other sects have used 
the "anxious seat/' and so far this objection 
lies equally against them ; yet I believe the M. 
E. Church was the first sect who used it, and 
by the right of discovery it belongs to her. We 
shall therefore treat it as a Methodist institution, 
and an important part of your revival machin- 
ery. What would a Methodist camp meeting 
be without the anxious seat? It would, no 
doubt, be regarded by Methodists generally as a 
very dry and tame affair, not worth keeping up. 
It would be wanting in what is called the "pow- 
er of the Spirit to convert sinners." It is, 
therefore, essential to your success in conduct- 
ing your great revivals. But I need hardly say 
to one so well informed as Bishop Morris, that 



180 LETTERS TO 

you have neither precept nor example for the 
anxious seat, in the Bible. And so far as I am 
informed, you do not claim Scripture authority 
for it. I once heard a Methodist preacher try- 
ing to prove the divinity of the " mourner's 
bench,' ' by which I will illustrate this point. 
He said, " But our opposers say to us, where is 
your Scripture for the mourning bench ?" 
" Well," continued he, " I will tell you; God 
blessed my soul at the mourning bench ; and 
that is as good as any Scripture.' ' This was 
the best, and as far as I recollect the only testi- 
mony he gave. This was a tacit admission that 
there was no Scripture authority for it. 

The truth is, when your societies began to 
spread in America, you " felt the need of some- 
thing" to aid you in your revivals, and you 
adopted the anxious seat, or mourning bench, 
as an experiment, and its " practical working" 
was satisfactory, and so you have retained it as 
a permanent institution. But you know it is a 
mere stroke of human policy, a " capital hit." 

I have been present at some of your revival 
ineetings, when sinners were invited, exhorted, 
urged, and in some instances forced to come 
forward to the mourning bench, to " get relig- 
ion" — "to come and receive the prayers of the 
people of GocU" Under these exciting appeals 



BISHOP MORRIS. 181 

I have seen scores, of both sexes, rush to the 
altar to be prayed for, under the vague impres- 
sion that these good people were in some sense 
intercessors or mediators between them and 
God. At the anxious seat they were told by 
the preachers, and others, that the moment they 
would give up their hearts to God, they would 
experience the change called "getting religion.' ' 
1 have known these poor honest creatures to re- 
main in the altar for many hours, praying and 
agonizing themselves and being prayed for by 
their honest but misguided Christian friends ; 
and during the long struggle, some would "get 
through," and others would remain in deep sor- 
row perhaps for weeks and months, and finally 
become sceptical in religion, and turn away from 
it as a fable ! 

How different was the practice of the Apos- 
tles. When the inquiring multitude on Pente- 
cost cried out in the anguish of their hearts, 
saying, " Men and brethren, what shall we do ?" 
the Apostles simply answered, " Repent and be 
baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall 
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." 

Now, if ever there was a time when the anx- 
ious seat might have been introduced with ad- 
vantage, if indeed it were of God, the day of 



182 LETTERS TO 

Pentecost was the time. And I presume, Doc- 
tor, if you or some of your revival preachers 
had been there, when Peter told the mourners 
to " Repent and be baptized in the name of Je- 
sus Christ, for the remission of sins/' you would 
have stopped him in something like the follow- 
ing strain : "J Peter, you are certainly wrong in 
teaching mourners to be \ baptized for the re- 
mission of sins.' In fact, that is ' Campbellism.' 
Tell them to come forward to the anxious seat, 
and be prayed for, and perhaps they may ' get 
through' that way." 

And by the way, Di\ Morris, did not the anx- 
ious seat, or mourning bench, come down from 
Rome ? I admit that the Roman Catholics did 
not, and do not use it exactly in the form we 
find it practiced in the M. E. Church. But 
they pray to the Virgin Mary, and the saints, 
and ask their intercession and mediation in be- 
half of the living and the dead. And hence the 
priests have come to be looked upon as media- 
tors, and their prayers are sought by the igno- 
rant as a means of grace and pardon of sins. 
But upon the subject of the anxious seat, I find 
my views so well expressed in the Baptist Rec- 
ord of June 28, 1843, that I beg leave to copy 
it, or at least a portion of it. This will show 
that the Baptist liecord, the organ of the 



BISHOP MORRIfl. 



183 



"American Baptist Publication and Sunday- 
School Society, " published in Philadelphia, 
agrees with' me in my estimate of the anxious 
seat or mourning bench. This is a part of a 
series of articles on the "Aspects of the present 
revivals on the churches, No. 6.'' The writer 
says : 

"At the close of the last article, I intimated 
that in this I should state my objections to 
'anxious seats/ as operating injuriously on 
the religious character of the inquirers them- 
selves. To this, then, I shall now address my- 
self. I may safely take it for granted that the 
religious character of a religious man is benefi- 
cially or injuriously affected, according as his 
religious opinions are correct or incorrect ; and 
this being assumed, I can see great danger of 
his embracing erroneous religious opinions, 
from the practice in question. It has been al- 
ready stated, that those under religious concern 
are urged to take the ' anxious seat/ with a view 
to committing themselves on the side of God 
and religion ; and were this all, the following 
observations w r ould be without foundation. But 
it is not so. They are urged by this act to 
* ask the prayers of God's people* in their behalf. 

" Now I am far from intimating that the ef- 
fectual fervent prayer of a righteous man is with- 



is! 



LETTERS TO 



out avail ; and as far from forgetting that when- 
ever two such agree as touching any thing they 
shall ask, they have a gracious promise for their 
encouragement ; neither do I forget that in- 
spired men ask the prayers of the churches on 
their behalf. The danger, in the case before us, 
arises from the moral condition, at the time, of 
those who are encouraged to ask the prayers of 
Christians. Their condition is one of extreme 
spiritual ignorance, and of this they are just be- 
ginning to be sensible; the sense of their igno- 
rance expresses itself in the inquiry, 'What 
shall we do V f What must we do to be saved ?' 
If they put not forth virtually these inquiries, 
they are not properly to be considered ' anxi- 
ous/ and hence the 'anxious seat' is not their 
j)lace. 

" But if they make these inquiries, what an- 
swer do they receive ? * What shall you do to 
be saved ? Ask the prayers of God's people, 
by coming to the anxious seat/ says the minis- 
ter. Now the minister is the religious teacher 
of these people ; and he thus teaches them (un- 
wittingly, I acknowledge) another way of salva- 
tion than the true one. They receive the im- 
pression that God's people are mediators be- 
tween them and himself ; and thus, that there 
is not 'one mediator only/ Is this teaching 



BISHOP MORRIS. 185 

calculated to exalt Christ, in their estimation, as 
the only foundation of a sinner's hope? Will 
this teaching produce a race of Christians of the 
class of him who, on his way to the stake, said, 
€ None but Christ ; none but Christ V In such 
teaching, I ask, where is the blood ? 

"But this subject has other aspects. If minis- 
ters of Christ will thoroughly reflect on the ten- 
dencies of this practice, it will, I am certain, be 
speedily abandoned. It may startle some of 
them to learn that, by this measure, (not a new 
one, as will soon appear,) they are preparing the 
way for one of the grossest abominations of Pa- 
pal idolatry to overshadow the land. * Howbeit 
they mean it not so ; neither cometh it into their 
heart.' I allude to the worship of saints. ' Strike 
but hear me/ as the Grecian said. Brethren, 
cast not this paper aside, under the conviction 
that the writer is mad ; but accompany him to 
the page of history, and trace with him the act- 
ual origin of the worship of saints in the Papal 
church ; and you will say, * How like this is, to 
this !' Idolatry in the church did not rise ac 
once. There was a * day of small things' which' 
was overlooked ; and behold, whereunto did it 
grow? But to the page of history is our ap- 
peal. 

" The actual origin of the worship of saints, 



186 LETTERS TO 

is as follows : In the third century, Tertullian, 
an illustrious pastor of Carthage, holds the fol- 
lowing language in his work, de penitentia : 
'It is necessary to change our dress and food, 
we must put on sackcloth and ashes, we must 
renounce all comfort, and adorning of the body, 
and falling down before the priest, implore the 
intercession of the brethren.' Here is the origin 
both of mortifications, penances, etc., and saint 
worship. 'Behold,' says D'Aubigne on this 
page of Tertullian, ■ man turned aside from 
God, and turned back upon himself.' 

" Now I ask whether, so far as the practice 
in question is concerned, there is no identity of 
import in the expressions, ' Ask the prayers of 
God's people,' and ' Implore the intercession of 
the brethren?' But the latter is shown, by the 
pen of history, to have been the origin of saint 
worship: and for what the former shall bring 
upon the churches, the ministers of the present 
age will be held responsible. * Consider of it, 
take advice, and speak your mind ;' Jud. xix. 
30. How natural the progress is, in a mind 
'spiritually enlightened, from * asking the prayers 
of God's people,' to the idolatry of the church 
of Rome, a moment's reflection will convince 
any one. 

" The people on whose prayers the inquirer 



BISHOP MORRIS. 187 

is taught to rely, are his neighbors, acquaint- 
ances and relatives — persons whom he knows, 
from daily intercourse with them, have many 
imperfections, and are, indeed, very ordinary 
saints ; and he reasons thus : 'If their prayers 
on my behalf will be prevalent, how much more 
so the prayers of ministers ; and if the prayers 
of saints on earth are prevalent, a fortiori, the 
prayers of those in heaven will be more so. If 
the prayers of common saints avail, much more 
will those of eminent ones, as Paul and Peter, 
James and John ; and especially will those of 
the Virgin avail. If saints, the best of whom 
have sinned, can be prevalent intercessors, much 
more angels who have never sinned.' Is not 
this progress to idolatry, palpably downward 
though it be, yet natural to a darkened mind ? 
And who can tell whither it will run ? 

¥ But I have yet another objection to the 
practice in question. It tends to produce in the 
after life of the convert (real or supposed) spir- 
itual pride. He is supposed to have become a 
Christian under the persuasion that the prayers 
of Christians contributed to his conversion. 
They were intercessors with God for him. But 
now he has become a saint ; he is promoted to 
the office and character of a mediator with God 
for others. Can he dispossess his mind of the 



188 LETTERS TO 

thought that the prayers of saints, and of him- 
self among them, possess an efficacy before God, 
as such; that their prayers stand in less need of 
the Savior's intercession than those of signers, 
to render them acceptable ? I had almost said 
must it not be the case, that the searcher of hearts 
reads, in his spirit, some such expression as, 
{ God, I thank thee that I am not as other men 
are — nor even as this sinner'- — 'Stand by thy- 
self ; come not near me ; I am holier than thou ?' 
And this evil, if it exist, is to be attributed to 
the errors of his first instructions ; and it be- 
comes his instructors to inquire to what extent 
they will be held responsible.' * 

Now, Doctor, it seems to me that my seventh 
objection to the M. E. Church is well taken, and 
certainly well sustained by the logical reasoning 
of this Baptist scribe. The anxious seat, in 
your practice, is made to take the place that 
baptism occupied in the teaching and practice 
of the Apostles, and thus the law of the Lord is 
made void by your traditions. You tell anxious 
souls to come to the anxious seat, to get pardon ; 
but the Apostles told such to " repent and be 
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the re- 
mission of sins," or pardon. 

With these facts before my mind, I could not 
be a Methodist. But I found the Christian 



BISHOP MORRIS, 189 

church " contending earnestly for the faith once 
delivered to the saints," and preaching repent- 
ance and remission of sins, just as the inspired 
Apostles preached it, and I united with her, and 
/ know we are right, and can not be wrong. 
"With these seven reasons, I close this series of 
letters. And now may the blessing of God rest 
upon you, and all who read these letters, and 
save us all from delusion. Amen. 

Yours truly, J. M. Mathks. 




Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proces 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologiei 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIO 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



